

















"3> ? 1» 



3> ^ »>> 

> > >:>^ 






# LIBRARY OF CnNRRESSig* 



^/,y,. LB t»33 



"^^ o,:^ > 


# 




# 


-:^ >^-i> .:^ " 


f UNITI 


-::::> .r>T>^ ^ ^> 


-^> . >> :> -i^ 


1 i l-^.-^''!^'« 


;^r. >.>^^ ^]' 


-V. ^'^ 


zz»> >>o '^-. 


-^ 


^^ -.^^J^ ^'^ 


» Z^ 


^^ y>:3> »>^ 


" ^ 


"^ • >^'^> »'"^ 


^ 


:z^ 5-»r> *- 


>^ .J^ 


> — "^fc t '^^' ^ -^ '*^ 


*' J> 


'^5 ^-> -^ ^^'-- 


*' ^ 


: -^^ -^::> ».^ 


' '^ 


—^ ^ 3> 2> «» 


• .-23^. ' ' 


Z> ^>"3> ^^5» 


-^ ■■ ' 


-^^ 3J> 3>,^»> 


.„^- ' 


'^ i:> ]»We> 


_-^> 


-'— > .^'^ .^^^5» 


— ^^ - ■ ^ 


^^ »:>■ -»my> 


"Z^ ' • "^ 


=^. ..r> ^>3>> 


.ZI^ ■' - - ^ 




"I^ A> 


H^ J> 


> :ir> j8>.a>>» ::. 


Z^ "' Zi> 


>. .>^ 3>'-5>». _ 




:> 1^ j3> 5>>^ 


J^ -> 


-> >> :2>a?» 


-^^;>' /^ 


Z> >7> . 2> J^^-" 




z> ;■:> ^x* j>i>> 


3^ 3 


!> >> » 9^r» 


">> ■ i> 


^ ^> >:* >T>> 


J>> > 


Z> S7> >>^r>> 


>■ ) 


z> »> :»» >c*» ■ 


:>• ^ 


> "*> ^>. 3'2>tn 


> ^ 


\>:2> >»> >^» 


]> ■ > 


> *> , .^.id :.!) .'^^fcs 


>■ > 


I> £> >a> 3>~3^> 


~> > 


;> >> ^o5) .sT:^^ ■ 


> J) 


":>:?> .-•>>-» j>£2J^ 


> :> 


> :?>-:j>» >T=^t 


> > 1 



^ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 






^^^> 



.. ^v> .i>::> "'•^^ -< 
l> ^ .>>■:> 2>>^^ .^ 

->--> s> » z^» 

x> » s> 

1> ^o ^> :3t> ^ 

^> T> >:> ^> ^> 

x> i> ^> » ^> 

i»3s--> ?:> .:» » 









3> . :>>,^J>-^ 

o ■ a? - 

5> v^2» > 3>:' 















r> pQ*. 



3> ^-> 









.>' 


> 


>■> : 


> 


'-■- % 




>« 


i!> 


> 


fc ;^ 


>■/ 


r» 


>- ; 


s> 






' > :>' :j 
, > ,. ^ 



> > 

> > 



























— 3> ^ 



>> >:> 

>> • ■_ 



^^ > _Z3K> : , 


^7i> 


s2^'>Qit> . 


Z!g> 


^^>. >-^ ^, 


':g> 




^ 






^ -^^ '^ 


::s> 






^'- I3£> >.. 


^^ 


''-^?^-^ 


i-Il> 


■ ^-,» ■>> 




:3g> :> 


ZJB* 


:^3g> .>^ :^ 


:2M»: 


-j*> _> , v: 


:jm*- 



::i> > 






■i> ^ 


:s>^ 


x> _ 


:3*. 


» 


^> 


:>^ 


7S^ 


>> 


:i> 


> /3» 


>^ 


^> 


•>>;" 


^> 


»- 


ai> ' 


:..^ 


:» 


» 


z:s^ 




^ - 


■^«> _;;3> 


> 


"::«» :_' 




. JS> ; 




-» ?' 




. y> ' 




T8> „ 



SEQUEL 



SO CALLED CORRESPONDENCE 



BETWEEN THE 



Rev. M. H. SMITH and HORACE MANN, 

SURREPTITIOUSLY PUBLISHED 

BY 

Mr. SMITH; 

CONTAINING A / 

LETTER FROM MR. MANN, 

SUPPRESSED BY MR. SMITH, 

WITH THE 

REPLY THEREIN PROMISED. 



BOSTON: 

WILLIAM B. FOWLE, 138^ WASHINGTON STREET. 
TUTTLE AND DENNETT, PRINTERS, 

c^ 1847. 



MR. MANN'S REPLY 



Rev. M. H. SMITH 



Rev. M. H. Smith;— 

Dear Sir; — When, on the 19th of October last, I addressed you 
a note privately, I had no anticipation of ever doing so, publicly. 
You have forced this painful necessity upon me. 

I had then just seen, in the Boston Recorder of Oct. 15, a re- 
port of " A Sermon" twice delivered by you, in Boston, — once in 
Faneuil Hall, and once in your own pulpit. In that Sermon, the 
Massachusetts Board of Education were charged with the gravest 
offences against morals and religion. The Board then consisted of 
His Excellency, Governor Briggs, His Honor, Lieut. Governor Reed, 
Hon. Wm. G. Bates, Rev. Dr. Humphrey, J. W. James, Esq., 
Prof B. Sears, Rev. E. H. Chapin, Rev. H. B. Hooker, and Hon. 
S. C. Phillips, — three of the nine being eminent Orthodox clertry- 
men, and three others, members of Orthodox societies. These gen- 
tlemen, — these ornaments to learning and religion, — were charged 
by you with aiding, in their combined and collective capacity, to get 
the Bible out of our Common Schools ; to get all religious instruction 
out of them ; to remove all restraints from the depraved passions 
of scholars, " but a little talk ;" and, by the anti-religious, or non- 
religious instruction encouraged by them in the Common Schools, 
to neutralize the religious instruction which pious parents and teach- 
ers might give at home, or in the Sabbath School. I was repre- 
sented as the chief actor in this diabolical work; they, as my aiders 
and abettors. This atheistical work, — for the e.xckision of all reli- 
gion is atheism, — was not in prospect, in intention, merely. Accord- 
ing to you, it had, in pari, been already perpetrated. 



Without making me a partner in their guilt, you further charged 
the Board of Education with inculcating deadly heresy upon the 
minds of the young, and luring them, under the guise of attractive 
books, to temporal and eternal death ; — opening, in the thousands of 
school districts in the State, a gate-wny to he'll, and strewing with 
flowers the paths that led to it. In the whole account, there was not 
a syllable to soften or to palliate our fiendish purpose. The Board 
and myself were not treated as idiots or madmen, sportively scatter- 
ing our " firebrands, arrows and death," and irresponsible, because 
irrational . We were spoken of as sober men, knowing what we were 
about, and, of course, foreseeing the consequences of our conduct. 

Nor was this concentration of iniquities the result of any rash or 
unfortunate movement, — of any of those mistakes or missteps which 
wise men may sometimes make. 

The Massachusetts Board of Education has existed for ten years. 
It has proposed important measures, which, by the co-operation 
of ten successive Legislatures, by the aid of thousands of school 
committee men, and other thousands of the wisest friends of educa- 
tion and truest lovers of their race, — of all parties and all creeds, — 
have been carried forward into practice. Four of the New England 
States, having been spectators of our movements, have, at length, 
through their Legislators, copied the leading features of our system ; 
and most particularly have they favored the one to which you most 
particularly object. W^hat the Board have done, therefore, they have 
not done in a corner. Their acts have been known in other places. 
They have been imitated by the most intelligent States in the coun- 
try. They must, of course, have been approved by them. The 
humble individual whom the Board have honored with their confi- 
dence, has been on the most intimate terms with the several mem- 
bers, both officially and personally. He has made numerous reports 
to their body, deliberated at their sessions, corresponded with them 
frequently, and delivered hundreds of addresses, when they, or some 
of them were present. They cannot plead ignorance of his purpo- 
ses, nor he of theirs. If, instead of doing what we can to sustain 
and to brighten the fair fame of Massachusetts, we, — worse than the 
Moloch of the Ammonites, — are dooming not only the bodies, but the 
souls, of children to perdition, we are doing it wittingly and of mal- 
ice aforethought. Indeed, this is the view you took of us, in order 
to fill up the measure of our guilt. 



It was in this condition of things that you, — the Rev. M. H. Smith, — 
after having been, by your own confession, blindly wandering from 
ti-uth, through almost all the years of your past life, and leading souls, 
— (the powers above and below only know how many,) — into what 
you now call a damnable heresy ; — that you, claiming, at last, to have 
had your eyes miraculously opened, but as yet, like the blind man 
m the gospel, only seeing men as trees walking, — burst upon the 
world with your astounding revelations ! 

The occasion of which you availed yourself was an aggravation of 
your conduct. Some developments had been made in regard to 
the morals of the city of Boston. The young were thought to 
be in peculiar jeopardy. A general alarm was sounded. Large 
meetings were held. The beautiful sight was exhibited of a union 
of all the Sabbath School teachers of all denominations, to save the 
lambs of their different folds from the common prowler, I supposed 
I felt as deep an interest in this movement as you or any other per- 
son could do. At one of the meetings I was invited to preside, by 
some of the most respectable citizens of Boston, and my compliance 
with the request was prevented only by indispensable engagements. 
It was given out that you were to discourse upon this exciting topic, 
in which all good citizens had an equal interest. Crowds assem- 
bled, without any reference to political or denominational distinc- 
tions. You seized this opportunity. You collected together all the 
crimes known to society, and called out, by name, the classes of 
men at whose door you laid them. The following are the leading 
points of your assertions; — I do not exaggerate their spirit, but only 
abbreviate their language : — Boys and girls belonging to the Boston 
public schools, had an assignation-house, furnished with'all that pan- 
ders to base and wicked passions, where both sexes met at night. 
Obscene French prints wei-e circulated in school. Little school- 
girls, having turned bawd-mothers, corrupted their associates. In 
the best schools in the city, licentiousness abounded. The Washing- 
tonians, and not the rumsellers, caused the increase of intemperance. 
The professed friends of prisoners stimulated crimes, and so forth, 
and so forth. But the highest of all offences, known to the laws of 
God, or among the ethics of men, you hurled at the Board of Educa- 
tion, and at me, and said — These are yours ! It is three months 
since you said these things. Had they been true, Boston, ere this, 
would have been a Sodom. 



Had you called the members of the Board of Education and my- 
self a knot of pickpockets and sheepstealers, I do not think that any 
of us could have been taken more by surprise at the charge, or could 
have denied it, and defied you to prove it, with more conscious inns- 
cence ; or, in relation to the Board, at least, that such a charge 
would have been more incompatible with the whole of their lives. 

When I first saw your sermon, so called, I said, as I have no 
doubt hundreds of others did, — \Vho is the Reverend Matthew Hale 
Smith ? Who is he, whose perspicacious eye sees what the other 
watchmen of the city have failed to discover ? Where, for ten 
years, have been the Sharps, the Jenkses, the Blagdens, the Wins- 
lows, the Beechers, and others ? In the language of the prophet, 
are they " blind watchmen ?" — are they " all dumb dogs that cannot 
bark ; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber ?" Your sermon 
accuses them of this, as plainly, if not as indecently, as it accuses 
the Board and myself of getting the Bible out of the schools. 

In that part of your pamphlet, which, as I shall presently show, 
you untruly call the " Correspondence" between yourself and me, 
you accuse me of a want of good taste. Waiving for a moment the 
falsity of your accusations, allow me to ask you if it is in good taste 
for a young clergyman, in his sermon, to call out and denounce indi- 
viduals by name, or by any such special designation as identifies 
them to the audience. Where the accused cannot answer, it is held 
dishonorable to attack. Those cjergyman who desecrate their pul- 
pits by indulging their malevolence, generally commit their libels in 
their prayers. You have thrown off even this screen. In a sermon, 
in your pulpit, you charged the Board of Education and myself, with 
the above detailed enormities. Three of us were your fellow-citi- 
zens. Attracted by the subject, if not by the speaker, we might 
have been members of your audience. We were not, — but some of 
our friends and the friends of truth were ; and when they heard 
your charges against the Board and myself, moved by sudden indig- 
nation, they were pronounced, on the spot, and in no inaudible whis- 
per, to be a lie ! If that response was in bad taste, what was your 
provocation, which struck it out, as flint a spark .'' If men are to be 
invited to church, by the attraction of an occasional discourse, on 
a deeply interesting theme, and are there to hear themselves or their 
friends called out by name, and denounced as guilty of the blackest 



crimes, will there not soon be such a chnnt in the churches as will 
not redound either to the honor of the place or to the cure of souls ? 

On reading the Recorder's account of your sermon, I could not 
believe it to be a correct representation of any discourse ever deliv- 
ered in the city of Boston. The uncouth title, resembling those 
tricky devices by which low hucksters and pedlars attract attention 
to their miserable wares ; the declaration positively made, that our 
State prison would soon be full of convicts, when it is known to all 
who lake an intelligent interest in the subject of crime, that for thir- 
tyfive years past, there have been but two years in which the com- 
mitments have been so few as during the last, and also that there 
were fewer inmates in it than at any period for twenty years ; the 
assertion that the increase of intemperance is to be attributed to 
the Washingtonians, who, though they may not always have been 
discreet, or judicious, (and how, from their previous education 
and habits, could this be expected,) have yet done incalculable 
good ; the infamous " Five-Points" character given to the Boston 
schools ; and, worse than all, because affecting more deeply the 
moral and religious foundations on which alone society can repose, 
your charges against the Board of Education ; — when I saw these 
things, my second thought was that some roaming penny-a-liner had 
dropped in to hear you, and supposing the Boston Recorder to be 
always ready to accept any thing, however unjust or untrue, against 
the Board or myself, had dressed up your sermon, after the style of 
a criminal romance, and had sent it to that paper. 

Hence my first note to you was one of inquiry, not of accusation. 
I expressed my reluctance to believe that you had been correctly 
reported. That you might know how zealous the Board had been 
on the subject of introducing the Bible into our schools, I sent you 
a copy of their Eighth Report, which contains the ablest argument 
in favor of its use, to be found in the English language. I sent it 
to you as I had reprinted it in the Common School Journal, that you 
might see what I had done to give it circulation, and to promote its 
object. I closed by saying that the charges in the Recorder ought 
either to be substantiated or withdrawn. This letter bore date Oct. 
19th, 1846. 

In your reply, you neither withdrew, nor attempted to prove. 
You aggravated the case. ' You made the most cruel and unfound- 



8 

ed suggestions. You said " I regard you as the representative of 
a system, or its head, which seeks to change, slowly, perhaps, but 
surely, the whole system of Education in Common Schools, — the 
result of which, will be to elevate the intellectual above the moral, 
and man above God." You said, " I understand you to be opposed 
to the use of the Bible in school, as a school book." Having be- 
fore represented me as being in favor of aholishing the rod, you 
now asked, " Are you in favor of the use of the rod as a principle 
means of enforcing obedience .''" " I understand you to be opposed 
to religious instruction in schools," and so forth. This letter was 
dated October 27th. 

All this seemed to be wholly repugnant to high minded and hon- 
orable conduct. I then addressed you my letter of Nov. 9th, com- 
plaining that you had left your original charges without a particle of 
proof, and without that retraction which should have followed the fail- 
ure of proof. 

More than six weeks after this, namely, on the 23d of Dec, I re- 
ceived the long communication, which you have since published in 
your pamphlet, under the title of " Reply." 

On the next day, I acknowledged its receipt, and immediately 
placed the letter in the post office, with my own hands. The fol- 
lowing is a copy of the letter I sent you : — 

West Newton, Dec. 24th, 1S46. 
Rev. M. H. Smith ; 

Dear Sir ; — I received, late last evening, by express, your long communi- 
cation of the 23d inst. — if I rightly read the date, which is not very legible. 
I am now engaged in getting out the Annual Report of the Board of Educa- 
tion, — which includes my own, — and shall continue to be engaged with this 
and other work of an indispensable nature, until about the end of the second 
week in January next. This work occupies me at least fifteen hours a day, 
and will continue to do so. I regret this unavoidable delay in attending to 
your communication. I ran my eye over it last night, enough to see its plan 
and to learn its salient points ; and I assure you that I shall not allow what 
seems to me to be such a compact tissue of evasion, misstatement and un- 
warrantable inference, to remain unanswered for a single day longer than 
other engagements compel me to do. 

Very truly, yours, &c. &c. HORACE MANN.* 

Just one fortnight from the date of the above note, namely on 
the 6th of January, I found your pamphlet on the counter of a 

♦Owing to the great length of the Board's Report, it was not out until Jan. 22d. 



bookstore in Boston, exposed for sale. One part of it is entitled, 
*' Correspondence between the Hon. Horace Mann, Sec. of the Board 
of Education, and Rev. Matthew Hale Smith," I complain that 
this title is false, in form and substance. Your pamphlet does not 
contain the correspondence between yourself and me, but only a 
part of it. An integral portion of what was written is suppressed, 
and you were apprized of my intention to reply to your last letter. I 
stated to you the causes which made a brief delay, on my part, una- 
voidable. Were they not reasonable ones ? It was more than six 
weeks from the time I wrote you, on Nov. 9th, before I received 
your reply. Why not allow me a reasonable time to prepare mine? 
Was it just, fair, decent even, for you to precipitate the publication, 
and thus forestall public opinion ? Look at the case. You denounce 
me before the public for one of the most heinous sins which it is possi- 
ble for a man to commit. Instead of recrimination as public as your 
crimination, I approached you privately, to ask whether you did it, 
and why you did it; and I sent you evidence of your error. You 
answered me with cool, sullen aggravation. I expostulated further, 
showing you that, instead of inquiring, and then condemning, you 
had condemned and then inquired. You waited six weeks, and 
more. From your foot-prints, it seems that, during this interval, 
you travelled through all my writings to find cause of accusation 
against me. In your " Reply," you have tcrlured my language, to 
make it mean what I never said. As editor of the Common School 
Journal, I once had an animated discussion with a correspondent on 
the subject of corporal punishment ; — he being against its use, and 
I defending it. I followed his arguments with my own, on the same 
page, and veliemently protested against them. You have taken his 
remarks, ascribed them to me, and expunged my protest. You 
have attributed to me what was said in this country when I was in 
Europe, and of which I \vas as ignorant as an unborn child. You 
have drawn out and misrepresented conversations, as strictly entitled 
to the right of privacy as any thing can be, said out of a man's own 
bed-chamber. Without waiting a reasonable time, — without wait- 
ing at all, — for my vindication, you have hurried this case before 
the public, suppressing my last letter, giving no hint, by note or 
otherwise, that I had aught further to say. 

When your pamphlet appeared, it was understood to contain the 
X 2 



10 

whole correspondence between us. Many people formed their 
judgments accordingly. Those judgments have been communicated 
through private circles and published in the press. 

Put this case, Mr Smith, in the light least unfavorable to yourself. 
Suppose we were litigants before a court, not in a case involving life, 
but character, which is more than life. Suppose copies of all the 
documents, — the accusation, plea, answer, cSjc, to be in possession 
of us both. At a point in the investigation, where you deem the 
aspect of the evidence most favorable to yourself, though it is known 
to you at the same time that I am about to reply further, you gather 
together the papers, hasten to the court, represent the argument as 
closed, and claim a decision in your favor, and a sentence of con- 
demnation against me. You are guilty of all this. 

I now demand that the case be reopened. If we are not in Bota- 
ny Bay, — if we are not in a place worse than Botany Bay, — I think 
it will be reopened. 

But this is not all. You call your publication " Correspondence," 
&c. What constitutes a correspondence ? I answer, it must include 
the attendant circumstances, as well as the main facts. Among these 
circumstances is that of time. The date of an instrument or a 
letter, is an essential part of it, — oftentimes it is the only part which 
gives relevancy and force, or takes them away. All the letters which 
passed between us had a date. In what you call the " Correspond- 
ence," you have given the date to all but one. That one is your 
last. From this, in publishing it, you have stricken the date. 
Hence the dates which appear in your pamphlet carry the reader 
far back into the last autumn. An inquiring reader asks, when 
the " Correspondence," took place. The last date that appears 
on the face of it is Nov. 9th. He, therefore, says, " from the 
first part of November to the first part of January is surely long 
enough for any man to reply — who can reply. Hence Mr. Mann 
must have abandoned his case." Such is the inference which every 
intelligent man would draw from the case, as your acts have repre- 
sented it. Such is the inference which many men did draw, but it 
is a false inference. Your trick of suppressing my last letter and 
the date of your own, caused the public to be deceived. 

The obliteration or alteration of a date, Mr. Smith, in a court of 
law, is forgery. In this case, you have done what is equivalent to 
both. The only difference is, that your acts affect no pecuniary 



11 

interest before a court of law ; but morally they are the same 
Had you committed this offence before a legal tribunal, in a case 
where but one shilling had been at stake, your prediction about the 
State Prison's being full, would have been one degree less untrue 
than it now is. 

Will you hear me ore moment longer on this point, Mr Smith ? 
You had no moral or legal right to publish my letters, without my 
consent. They were private property, — my property, — by the laws 
of the land ; neither youi's, nor that of the public. It is true they do 
not contain a syllable which I am unwilling the world should see, 
if seen in its proper connection ; but this does not exculpate you. 
Had I supposed it possible that you could be guilty of such a flagrant 
breach of duty, I could have applied to the courts, and they would 
have enjoined you to desist. If you were not restrained by any 
natural conscience, they would have been a vicarious conscience to 
you. They might not have been able to reform your will, but they 
would have restrained your hand. 

A few days after my note to you, of tne 24th December, a gentle- 
man in Boston, who, it seems, knew you far better than I did, told 
me you were engaged in publishing a pamphlet, in which the matters 
in controversy between us were to appear. I replied immediately, 
that I had but just received your letter, (that of Dec. 23d, whose 
date you have suppressed,) and that I had notified you of my inten- 
tion to answer it ; and then added, " It is impossible that Mr. Smith 
should have the baseness to publish our letters until he has received 
my reply to his last." This is the language, in which I repelled an 
intimation so dishonorable to you. I did not believe it possible for 
any man, in your position, to do a thing so vile. Alas ! you have 
confuted my charity. One of your standing charges against me is, 
that I think too well of human nature. If I do not modify my 
opinion after this, it will not be your fault. 

I found your pamphlet, on the 6th day of January instant, — the 
day of the assembling of the General Court, among whose members, 
I have been told, it has been extensively and gratuitously distributed. 

To this I now address myself. Its nature will be found worthy of 
the manner in which it was born. 

The first part is a republication of your sermon, from the Recorder. 
That sermon has now had. a pretty extensive circulation. Twice de- 
livered in Boston ; printed in the Recorder and distributed to all its 



12 

subscribers, (and, as I have heard, on good authority, with some 
hundreds of extra copies ;) and now printed in a pamphlet form and 
strown abroad ; — if all its leading averments are untrue, as I think I 
shall demonstrate, it has surely been a wholesale way of bearing 
false witness against your neighbor. 

The second part is called, " Review of the Sermon, in the Boston 
Courier, Oct. 27, 1846, by Wm. B. Fowle, Publisher of the Massa- 
chusetts ' Common School Journal.' " This " Review" you have 
prefaced by a note of a dozen lines, containing two positive mis- 
statements of fact. In the first, you call Mr. Fowle the " co-asso- 
ciate," in the Journal, with me. Mr. Fowle neither is nor ever has 
been my " co-associate" in the Journal, any more than the publish- 
ers of your pamphlet are your colleagues in the pastoral care of 
your church. Mr. Fowle has never written half a dozen articles 
for the Journal, during the eight years of its existence ; — not one 
of these articles relates to any point of which you complain, and the 
longest was on the discussion of an educational point, upon which 
we differed, and where I agreed to admit his views, reserving the 
right to reply to them. 

Your other misstatement is, that Mr. Fowle's " Review" was 
"semi-official," First, the Journal is not itself official. The Board 
had several times referred to it, and commended it, but, at the same 
time, they have disclaimed all control over it, or responsibility for 
it. Now, when the Journal itself is not official, how an article on 
your sermon, in the Boston Courier, can be " semi-official," trans- 
cends my knowledge of Fractions ; — but as your object, in these two 
misstatements, doubtless was to connect me, in some way with that 
" Review," or that " Review" with me, I will state, that I was absent 
from the city, attending Teacher's Institutes, at the time of its 
appearance, knew nothing of it, and never saw it until weeks after- 
wards, when, hearing of its existence from another source, I looked 
it up, and then read it for the first time. I will only add, that I 
have since heard some of your denominational friends say that the 
" Review," so far as it went, did you good justice. 

The third portion of your pamphlet is entitled " Strictures on the 
sectarian character of the Common School Journal," &c. " By a 
member of the Board of Education." 

In these three lines, 1 notice but one positive misstatement of fact ; 
but it is an exceedingly gross one. 



13 

On this point, however, before 1 correct you, I must correct 
myself. 

Ill October last, I copied into the Journal Doct. Howe's report 
on that interesting girl, Laura Bridgman. That Report contains 
the following sentiment : '' Almost ail children are as pure as Eve 
was ; but the tempting apples are left hanging so thickly around, 
that it would be a marvel if they did not eat." This was excepted to by 
the Rev. Dr. Humphrey, in the N. E. Puritan, as out of place in a 
Journal, intended for circulation among all religious denominations, 
and, therefore, to be kept aloof from "any controverted theological 
point." In this view I fully concur. I do not believe in the sentiment 
myself; and, if I did, I would not insert it in the Journal, without 
some protest or explanation. I now disavow it. I would have readily 
disavowed it at the time, had it been brought to my notice. I have 
prepared an article for the Journal disavowing it there. Its original 
insertion was an oversight. The article in the Puritan escaped me, 
and I was ignorant of the existence of the objectionable passage, 
until I saw it in the pamphlet. Since then, it has caused me great 
regret ; and, if I cannot justify myself, I can at least explain the 
circumstances which led to the error. The truth is, I read Doct. 
Howe's report, soon after its appearance, — that is, early in the year. 
For six weeks or more, in the months of September, October and 
November last, I was almost continually absent attending Teachers' 
Institutes, in different parts of the State, teaching during the day, 
lecturing at least half the evenings, and being obliged to prepare 
matter for the Journal, and to attend to a very extensive correspond- 
ence during the night. Under these circumstances, 1 took up Doct. 
Howe's Report, and, recollecting its highly interesting character, 
sent it to the printers without reperusal. The proof of these par- 
ticular lines must have been either very carelessly read, or, what is 
perhaps more probable, must have escaped being read at all, amid 
the cares and engagements which often obliged me to take up the 
sheets and lay them down several times, before the reading could 
be completed. The sentiment was not mine. It was not the senti- 
ment of a correspondent, writing for the Journal. May 1 not be 
pardoned for once being asleep ? " Aliquando bonus dormitat 
Homerus.'''' 

But you, Mr Smith, could not have been asleep, when you made 
your misstatement. It required faculties alive, active, and inventive. 



14 



The " Strictures" you quote, were upon a single three-line passage, in 
a publication now extending to eight octavo volumes. Dr. Humph- 
rey referred to this one passage. He alluded to no other sentence 
in all its more than three thousand pages. By fair implication and 
inference, therefore, he acquitted all the rest. By signing himself 
" Watchman," and by saying that such a sentiment ought to be 
" promptly protested against," he virtually said that he had seen 
nothing else exceptionable in the work.- But what have your inven- 
tive powers done ! You have entitled this, in capitals, Strictures on 
the " Sectarian Character" of the Journal. Now, character 
means some general, distinctioe quality, or attribute ; — something 
that marks and distinguishes a man, or thing, from other men or 
things. Can any thing be more intellectually absurd than to say, 
that a passage of three lines gives character to a work of eight vol- 
umes, containing more than a hundred and seventy thousand lines .'' 
But when such an absurdity is committed in order to mislead, its 
moral quality is infinitely worse than its intellectual. 

Since every word of the above was written and printed,! have re- 
ceived the subjoined letter from Dr. Humphrey himself. Although 
it will cause an unfortunate delay, yet I cancel some of the sheets to 
insert it. Its perusal will show you, Mr. Smith, that that truly vener- 
able and high-minded gentleman, on seeing the false character which 
you had given to his article, and the " false witness" which you had 
borne against me and against the Journal, was moved to repel your 
unfounded imputations. 

Pittsfteld, Jan. 26, 1847. 

Hon. Horace Mann; — Dear Sir; — I have just received a pamphlet 
through the Post Office, containing a correspondence between the Rev. 
Matthew Hale Smith and yourself, touching your important relation to 
tlie Common Schools of the State, as Secretary of the Board of Education. 
Tlii^ pamphlet also contains some remarks, extracted from the New Eng- 
land Puritan of Oct. 29th, on a passage in Dr. Howe's Special Report to 
the 'IVustees of the Asylum for the Blind, upon the remarkable case of 
Laura Bridginan, copied mto the Common School Journal of Oct. 15. 1846. 
The sentence strongly objected to in that article, is this, — that almost all 
children are as pure as Eve ivas. Mr Smith, I see, in his pamphlet, entitles 
the article " Strictures on the Sectarian Character of the Common School 
Journal, edited by the Hon. Horace Mann. By a member of tlie Board of 
Education." 

I am told that Mr Smith, (in conversation,) names me as the author of the 
article; by what authority, I am not informed. Now, my dear sir, as you 
will niiuirally be anxious'to know the exact truth in the premises, I frankly 
confess to you, that I wrote the article. But I do assure you, I never 
dreamed that any such use would be made of it; and much less, that any 



15 

body would think of entitlinof it " Strictures upon the sectarian character of 
the Common School Journal." Nothing was further from my thoughts. 
So far as I recollect, I had never noticed anything before in the Journal, of 
a sectarian character. My attention was confined, and my remarks were 
intended exclusively to apply, to the nuujber before me, and to the single 
quotation which I made from Dr. Howe's Report. 

I confess, I was very sorry to see that such a sentiment had found its 
way into the Common School Journal, bolh on its own account, and be- 
cause I knew how unfavorably it would strike the minds of a very large 
class of your readers. Under this impulse, I penned the article, and sent 
it to the Puritan. Upon reflection, I think it would have been better, if I 
had communicated my objections privately to you, as the responsible editor 
of the Journal. 

But " what is written is written" ; and I know you will not expect nor 
allow me, as an honest man, to say anything in this exglanation, which can 
fairly be understood as taking back the objections which were frankly and 
honestly stated in my remarks. I view the sentiment, that " Almost all 
children are as pure as Eve was," just as erroneous and just as much out 
ol place in the Journal, as I did when I first saw it. 

At the same time, I did not ascribe the admission of it, to the design or 
sanction of the Editor. It must have heen an oversight; though I could 
hardly see how it came to escape his quick and practised eye. I did not 
believe, and do not now believe, that it was your intention to send any- 
thing into our families, under the cover of a neutral journal, to which we 
could justly take exception, as bearing a sectarian aspect. It must have 
been an oversight. 

And here, I feel bo(jnd in justice to yourself to add, that our relations, 
since I became a member of the Board, have always been of the most friend- 
ly character. And as I have myself admired, so I have everywhere borne 
witness to your zeal and untiring industry, in the great cause to which you 
are devoting your time and tlie maturity of your talents. 

It is no new objection in Mr. Smith's pamphlet, as I presume you are 
well aware, that you are opposed to the use of the Bible, and to the giving 
of such religious instruction as it contains, in our Common Schools ; but 
my answer, when I have heard it, has uniformly been, that no evidence of 
such opposition has ever struck my mind, in listening to your annual re- 
ports, nor in the familiar interchange of opinions in the meetings of the 
Board ; but much to the contrary. 

I have only to add, that v/ith regard to the banishment of the rod from 
our Common Schools, I do not see how any one can charge you with stand- 
ing between incorrigible transgressors and corporal punishment, who has 
attentively read your remarks upon the no-punishment doctrines of a cor- 
respondent, in the Common School Journal for May, 1841, p. 154. You 
there say, " you are not able to discover any principle or precept, that 
would prohibit the use of punishment in school, which, if carried out to its 
legitimate consequences, would not also prohibit it in society." 

May you receive all that wisdom from above, which you need for the 
right discharge of your responsible duties ; and may all your efforts to ele- 
vate the standard of popular education on the broad basis of Bible reading, 
and sound Bible instruction, be crowned with success. 

I am sincerely and truly yours, H. HUMPHREY. 

I now come to that part of your pannphlet, which you have enti- 
tled " Correspondence," &c. between yourself and me. 1 have 
before shown that it is not what you have entitled it. A material 



16 

letter of mine, you suppressed. An important date of yours, you 
suppressed. Had you suppressed all the dates, the question of time 
would have been left open, and every intelligent reader would at 
once have inquired, when the correspondence took place, and whether 
it was closed. But by omitting a part of the dates, and retaining the 
rest, you made the true ones declare an untruth, — impregnated with 
this power from your own fulness. 

In deciding upon the merits of a controversy, nothing can be more 
material than to know whether it is ended. Arguments the most 
plausible may prove, on a deeper analysis, to be fallacious. Evi- 
dence the most decisive, may turn out to be fabricated. Every 
candid man asks the judicial question, " Aj^e all the arguments and 
the evidence in V Nor is it necessary that a disputant sliould say 
he has done. The lapse of time may say this for him. In a con- 
troversy carried on by letters that a man can write in a day, or, at 
most, in a week, if weeks after weeks elapse and a party makes no 
reply, the universal and legitimate inference is, that he is silenced ; 
that he has surrendered and sued for quarter, to save him from death, 
or does not sue for quarter, because already dead. 

Now the trick of giving all the dales up to Nov. 9th, and then sup- 
pressing the date of your '' Reply," and suppressing my last letter 
itself, if com.mitted in a court of law, would cause any practitioner 
to be thrown over the bar. What it will do in the profession to 
which you belong, remains to be seen. Should any man say in your 
behalf, " Mr Smith could not be so silly as to venture upon a device 
so easily exposed," — I reply, that one of the lessons I have learned 
from an observation of men and of life, is, that there is no telling 
beforehand what follies even an intelligent man, with a wicked pur- 
pose in his heart, will commit. For thus saith the wise king : " The 
way of the wicked is as darkness ; they know not at what they 
stumble." 

THE BIBLE. 

I proceed to your " Reply." On its second page, you have re- 
stated what you call " The accusation." But the fatality of your 
nature follows you here. You have not restated it truly. You have 
altered its language some, iis sense more. Here, too, you have 
suppressed what was one of the prominencies of your original charge. 
That charge was, that an effort had been made " with some success" 
to get the Bible out of our schools. Again ; in your restatement, — 



17 

omitting here, too, all reference to " success" — you say, the Board 
have aided " also to get religion out of school." Bui according to 
your original charge, they had not only aided, " with some success," 
to get all religious instruction out of school, but " to make Common 
Schools a counterpoise to religious instruction at home and in Sab- 
bath schools;" that is, if I understand you, they had aided, with 
partial success, to make the irreligious or non-religious instruction of 
the Common School, cancel, efface, or neutralize whatever religious 
instruction the children might have received at home or at Sunday 
schools. The restatement of your case, then, being spurious, I 
recur to your first accusation. " An effort has been made" — 
" with some success" — " to get the Bible out of our schools." " The 
Board of Education in Massachusetts, has aided in this work." 
What must every intelligent hearer or reader of these words under- 
stand ? Surely no less than that the Bible, — the sacred Scriptures, — 
the Old and Neio Testament, — King James's version of them, — had 
been expelled, by the aid of the Board of Education, from a part, 
at least, of our schools ; — that the Bible is, of course, now found in 
a less proportion of our schools than it was when the Board came 
into existence. Look at your language, Mr Smith. Can it mean 
any thing less than this, or any thing else than this ? 

But in your " Reply," this whole ground is changed. You say, 
in substance, the Bible is a revelation from God ; it is full of 
inspired maxims; it conta-ns laws and sanctions; it is able to 
make men wise unto salvation ; but that I, Horace Mann, hold 
certain erroneous notions regarding the divine authority of par- 
ticular passages in it, and think also that it contains certain other 
passages not suitable to be read in schools ; and therefore, though 1 
may advocate its introduction and use in schools, to the best of my 
ability ; nay, though I may "command a thousand copies per day 
to be introduced into th^ schools,' yet that, on account of my errors 
respecting the authenticity of some parts, and the propriety of reading 
some other parts, [in a promiscuous assembly of young lads and 
misses,] my " in^uewce" is really "against the Bible in schools." 
This is the ground taken in your " Reply ;"— not that I am really 
getting the Bible, — the Book itself, — out of school; but that 1 am 
disposed to acco.mpany its introduction with su-h errors and restric- 
tions, as will impair or defeat its salutary, its saving power. I think 
I have here stated your present ground fairly and fully. 



18 

Could you not then, Mr Smith, have said this, without more ? 
I deny, on the threshold, that you had any right to say even this, and 
I shall trouble you, by and by, with a consideration of the evidence 
on which you have said it. *For the present, I task my imaginative 
powers, and suppose it to be true. 

But assume, for a moment, that my " influence is against the 
Bible in schools," — as you understand it, because of my erroneous 
notions respecting it. Standing in the Cradle of Liberty and in the 
House of God, could you not have addressed the people somewhat 
after this wise : " I acknowledge that Mr Mann advocates the use of 
the Bible in schools ; has circulated, through his Journal, the ablest 
argument in favor of it to be found in the English language ; has 
introduced it into all schools and all Institutes wherever he has had 
influence or control ; but still I have reason to fear and do fear, that 
he worships the God of our fathers after the way which I call 
heresy, and therefore, I believe his injiuence to be, really, against 
the Bible in school, as I understand it ; and, for my single self, I would 
as lief he would get it out of school altogether, as to get it in with 
his heretical interpretations." 

Now, had you said this, at Faneuil Hall, and at the Church of the 
Pilgrims, would any body have understood you to affirm, what 
every body did understand you to affirm ? 

Suppose you were to say of the late Dr. Channing, that for the 
last thirty years of his life, he never read the Bible at all, and would 
not suffer a copy of it to be in his house ; and when called upon, 
and, at last, driven to explain, you should say that, true enough he 
had read the Bible, but the reading was always accompanied with 
such false glosses and interpretations, that, the more he read it, the 
more he did not read it, and the more copies he had in his house, 
the more he got it out of his house. Virtually, this is the way you 
now explain your charge against me. 

The great Bible Society was organized on the principle of includ- 
ing all denominations, who were to unite, as one man, in circulating 
the Scriptures. Could each of these denominations say, with either 
truth or decency, to all the rest, " You are all aiding to expel the 
Bible from the face of the earth, because, collaterally, you are all 
striving to have false interpretations go with it" } 

Nay, Mr Smith, was not this the grand distinction between the 



j^ia^ 



19 



Catholics and Protestants ? The Catholics wished to keep the Bible 
from the hands of the common people. The Protestants sought to 
2;et it into their hands, and to enable them to read it. Yet the Cath- 
olics, or some Jesuit amongst them, in writing the history of the 
Protestants, might say, with just as much truth as you have said of 
me, that it was one of the grand objects of Protestantism to get the 
Bible out of all schools, and out of all men's hands. 

Make a home application of your docti'ine. Nearly half the 
school committee men in Massachusetts are clergymen. Though of 
all denominations, yet they act. as one man in prescribing the Bible, 
as a school book. No sooner, however, are tliose meetings dissolved 
at which the Bible is placed on the list of school books, than they go, 
each to his pulpit, to his Bible-class, his Sunday school, his lecture 
room, to preach up his own peculiar views of that Book, and to 
preach dov/n the views of his colleagues on the committee, so far as 
they differ from him. Can each one of these say to all the rest, 
"Your influence is against the Bible in schools." You are " aiding 
to get the Bible out of school," because you expound it falsely .? 
This is what yon have said of me. 

Let us try your present explanation by the standard of a writer on 
morals. Paley is not thought to be very stringent in his ethical no- 
tions, yet hear his definition of a Lie : — " It is the wilful deceit that 
snakes the lie ; and ive loilfully deceive when our expressions are 
not true in the sense in tvhich we believe the hearer to understand 
them.'''' Now, when you delivered and re-delivered, and published 
and circulated, your "New Cart" sermon, you could not suppose 
that your hearers and readers would understand you to affirm, that 
the Board and myself were really aiding to get the Bible into the 
.schools, but that I was making the work " void" and of " none ef- 
fect," by my errors of interpretation. They could not understand 
thus from your language ;— and, therefore, I infer you did not mean 
to have them so understand. Now, can any case come more strictly 
within Paley 's definition than yours } If you meant what you now 
explain yourself to mean, you said one thing and meant its opposite. 

Look at your assertions in another of their mournful aspects. 
Surely, you knov/ the difference between the present and past tenses. 
The original charge goes to the point that efforts had been made to 
get out the Bible, &c. ; that these efforts had been attended " with 



20 

some success" ; and that the Board had aided in the work. These 
allegations are all in the past tense. It was ^uilt, not in purpose, 
but in fulfilment. The enemy were not menacing; the citadel from 
afar ; they were already in it, and " with some success," had hegun 
their work of destruction. But how is it in your " Reply .?" "Your 
influence is against the Bible in schools." " No plan can so eflec- 
tually get the Bible, ultimately, out of Common schools, as that 
which rejects p. part as not true, and another part as not fit to be 
read." " Ultimately^'' is now the word. The past has now be- 
come yw^Mre. The Bille is not yet got out, but only to be got out, 
at some indefinite future lime. Had you restricted yourself to a 
prophecy^ instead of writing history, a thousand members of the 
Teachers' Institutes would have replied, — " At all our meetings 
has not iVIr. Mann reverently read the Scriptures every morning V 
A thousand Normal School scholars would have said, " Has not 
Mr. ]V]ann been with us and joined with us in the reading of the 
Scriptures ?" Every reader of the Journal would have said, " Has 
not Mr. Mann published arguments in favor of reading the Bible in 
school, stronger than were ever published elsewhere .?" All would 
say, " Shall we believe in Mr. Smith's predictions or in Mr. 
Mann's actions .'" In your original charges, you held up this guilt 
to the world as in part committed ; in your defence you say, it toill 
he committed. According, to yourself, therefore, your original 
charges loere not true in the sense in which you meant your hearers 
should understand them. If true at all, it was only in another and 
a wholly different sense. Holding up before you again the above 
quoted definition of Paley, as a mirror in which you may see your 
face, I leave this point. 

My offence now is, that my " influence is against the Bible in 
school," on two accounts : 1st, Because I do " not believe the whole 
Bible to be the inspired word of God." 2d, " That parts [of it] are 
not proper to be read in school." What is the proof.? A private 
conversation held with the Rev. J. E. Woodbridge, some time since 
Dec. 11, 1S45. I am sure Mr Woodbridge will do me the justice to 
say, that in that conversation, I spoke of what are considered " t?i- 
terpolations^'''' and of interpolations only. And are there no interpo- 
lations, I\lr. Smith, in our present version, or King James's version, (as 
we call it,) of the Bible .'' Are you so verdant in theological learn- 



21 

ing, that you do not know that the greatest Biblical critics of all de- 
nominations, unite in opinion that there are passages in our present 
version which are not considered authentic ? Let me refer you to 
the particular passage which, as 1 now distinctly recollect, I had in 
my mind, when conversing with Mr. Woodbridge, — namely, I. John, 
V. 7. Do you not know that the ablest trinitarians consider it to be 
spurious ? I do not here mean to say, nor to intimate, that there are 
not a hundred other texts which prove what that text declares ; but 
are you ignorant of what is said of that particular text, by Bishop 
Lowth, Dr. Jortin, Dr. Bentley, Dr. Adam Clarke, Dr. J. Pye Smith, 
by the Eclectic Review, the organ of the trinitariau dissenters in Great 
Britain, and by Prof. Stuart, of Andover ? Did not Luther reject it 
from his translation, and protest against its authenticity ? Are they, 
and liundreds of other Calvinists and trinitarians aiding to get the 
Bible, not only out of schools, but out of pulpits, and out of the 
world, because they disclaim this passage ? By invidiously quoting 
against me that '■'■All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God," 
do you determine what " all Scripture" is. A centui-y ag-o, in the 
time of Mill, there were thirty thousand various readings ; there are 
now a hundred thousand or more. May we not exercise our private 
judgments upon these ; and may we not say what we think, in a 
private conversation, with a private individual, without being de- 
nounced by you as aiding in getting the Bible out of schools ? or as 
exercising an influence adverse to the Bible in schools ? 

There is something so outrageous, Mr Smith, in your hunting up 
this private conversation, giving it so false a turn, and then publish- 
ing it to to the world, that it amazes me into silence. 

When I called on Mr Woodbridge, he told me he had heard that 
I was opposed to the use of the Bible in schools. As the best of 
proof, I showed him what I had written and published, at a time 
when no question or controversy on the point was pending. He 
took the documents home, read them, and he then declared to me he 
was satisfied with my views as there expressed. 

On the other point I shall be brief, for though I have no recollec- 
tion of saying or of admitting to Mr. Woodbridge, that there are parts 
of the Bible " not proper to be read in school," — yet, if I had said so, 
1 think I could defend my position, and fortify it by the practice of 
every school teacher in Massachusetts, of whatever religious denomi- 



22 

nation. In schools and academies, composed in part of young mas- 
ters and misses, or young men and women, from fourteen to eighteen 
or twenty years of age, as four-fifths of all our schools and acade- 
mies are, does any teacher, female or male, select Solomon's Song, 
or the history of such a case of incest and crime as is recorded in 
the 38th chap, of Genesis, to be read by the classes ? I know of not 
one. I never have known of one. I think a universal public senti- 
ment would reprove it. 

The above is the extent, the uttermost, of what I have ever said, 
in any place, about there being parts of the Bible " not proper to be 
read in school" ; and if I am to be burned, — either in lody or in 
character^ — as a heretic for this, kindle your fagots ! 

In another place, page 37, you say, " You have no where in your 
public writings said, that you were" — " favorable to the whole Bible 
in schools." Here you only quibble on. the word " whole.'''' What 
I had said in my public writings, and what I had quoted to you as 
having said, was this : " It is my belief that the Bible makes known 
to us the rule of life, and the means of salvation, and it is my wish, [I 
have no authority in the matter,] that it should continue to be used in 
our schools." By this I meant, what the words obviously imply, — our 
present version of the Bible. You construct your sentence so as to 
bring in the adjective "wi^oZe," before the word " Bible," and then 
deny my declaration. 

On page 37, you imply that I did not answer a question you put 
to me. I did answer it, though at the same time I protested against 
your right, under the circumstances, to ask it. 

On page 43, a similar point occurs. To a question of yours, I 
replied, that, if you had inquired at the " proper sources of informa- 
tion," you would have known. You retort, sharply, that you inquir- 
ed of me, and was simple enough to suppose that to be the most 
proper source. But, when did you inquire of me ? — he/ore you 
made your public attack upon me, or after it ? If you think the 
two cases alike, — inquiring of a man beforehand, in order to obtain 
information, and inquiring of him after an attack, in order to catch 
him in his words, you must indeed be " simple ;" but in a very dif- 
ferent sense from what you probably intended. 



23 

THE ROD. 

Your whole argument on this point is a consecutive series of mis- 
statenaents, — bearing the same relation to a single untruth, that a 
mountain does to the particles of which it is composed. Up to the 
time of my controversy with a portion of the Boston Masters, as 
many public speakers and public writers had objected to my views 
of corporal punishment, because too severe, as had objected to them, 
because too lenient. 

At the very outset, you recklessly venture upon the following 
assertion : " No one has understood you, as far as I can learn, to 
advocate, or be in favor of the use of the I'od in Common Schools, 
as that phrase is commonly understood. The man is yet to speak 
who has so understood you ; the paragraph is yet to be written, that 
so asserts." pp. 40-41. Now, from a company of a thousand wit- 
nesses-, all ready lo confront you, and to deny the truth of your as- 
sertion, let me select one. Did you never hear of David P. Page, 
Esq., long a distinguished teacher in the High School, Newburyport, 
and a very able and prominent member of the Essex Co. Teachers' 
Association ; and now, for more than two years past. Principal of 
the State Normal School at Albany ; which he is conducting with 
extraordinary ability and success. In his work entitled, " Theory 
and Practice of Teaching," — a volume of 350 pages, — he has a sec- 
tion on the subject of " Corporal Punishment," or the use of the rod 
in school. Through fourteen pages, he vindicates its use. Nearly 
four of these pages, he has done me the honor to extract from my 
writings, and has made the considerations urged by me, in favor of 
the rod, the basis of his own argument. I select this witness from 
innumerable others, because he is a conspicuous one. You, daring 
to come in collision with Mr Page, on any point of judgment or ve- 
racity relative to schools, must be dashed in pieces like a potsherd. 
Here is his testimony. Probably it is within bounds to say, it is 
what he has openly declared a' hundred times, in oral addresses, 
written lectures, and in conversation, before publishing it in his book. 
Yet you aver, " the man is yet to speak who has so understood you ; 
the paragraph is yet to be written, that so asserts." 

Will you screen yourself under cover of your phrase, " as far as 
I can learn ;" then I reply, that your repugnance to learning must 
be equal to your repugnance to truth. 



24 

I cannot follow you here through all your groundless assertions ; 
for you not only get a misstatement into your briefest sentences, but 
you manage the adjectives and adverbs so as to make them perform 
the same office. 

As a specimen of the hydrostatic pressure with which you can 
compact misrepresentations, I will consider eight consecutive senten- 
ces or declarations of yours, which may be found commencing on 
page 40. I italicise your assertions, to distinguish them from my 
answers. 

1. " Those who use the rod and contend for its necessity, you 
hold up as adopting the terrible motto, ' Authority, Force, Fear, 
Pain: " 

Here you change a particular and limited application of my re- 
mark into a universal one. In one of the schools of those to whom 
I ascribed that motto, — consisting of about two hundred and fifty 
scholars, — there were 828 separate floggings in one week of five 
days, or an average of 65f each day. In another, eighteen boys 
were flogged in two hours in the presence of a stranger. In another, 
twelve or fifteen in one hour, &c. It was only those who flogged 
and vindicated flogging, at this rate, to whom I ascribed the above 
motto. You have made it apply to all who use the rod, and contend 
for its necessary use, however discreetly. I am sorry that you have 
awakened associations, or made it necessary to recur to facts con- 
nected with a by-gone controversy ; but you have been pleased to do 
this thing. 

2. " You quote and endorse the sentiment that the rod would 
KEVER BE NEEDED, if right instruction were given to a child.'''' 

In support of this, you refer to an essay written by a gentleman, 
now a Grammar Master in one of the Boston schools ; — surely a 
good authority for me, though you are careful to keep this fact out of 
sight. He is an orthodox gentlemen, also, — which shows that not 
all of that faith found the necessity of corporal punishment on your 
basis. But you have grossly misrepresented him. All that he said 
was that corporal punishment would not be needed, i?? school, provided 
there had been a wise and systematic course of family government 
at home. You leave out \heplace and one of the conditions. You run 
the sword clean through the body of your denominational brother, for 



26 

the sake of wounding me with its protruded point. It has pleased 
you, Mr Smith, to do this second thing ! 

3.* '^'^ You estimate the ability and fitness of a teacher, by his 
capacity to govern without punishnie^ity 

The following is my expression : " This however is certain, that 
when a teacher preserves order and secures progress, the minimum 
of punishment shows the maximum of qualifications." Does my 
commending, — not the exclusion, — but the minimum of punishment, 
prove that I would abolish " the rod and all correction, but a little 
talk, in school ?" Besides, I put in the conditions of '^preserving 
order'''' and " securing progress,''"' which you take the liberty to 
expunge. Tt has pleased you, Mr. Smith, to do this third thing ! 

4. " You say the use of the rod in school, is twice cursed, 
cursing him that gives and him that takes, — nay three times cursed.'''' 

The audaciousness of this and the following misstatements cannot 
be understood without an explanatory word. In 1841, I published, 
in the Journal, a series of articles from an able and excellent corres- 
pondent, touching various topics pertaining to Common School 
education. On niost points, we agreed. On the subject of corporal 
punishment, we differed, — he being for its entire exclusion from 
school, I, then as always, being for investing the teacher with power 
to use it, and for using it, should other and higher motives fail. At 
the end of an article, in which he contended for its entire disuse, I 
appended, editorially, almost two pages of remarks, contesting his 
views with all the vigor and effect I could command. Preparatory 
to answering his objections, I restated them ; and, to give him all the 
advantage he could possibly claim, I restated them very strongly, 
on his side. I thought then, as I think now, that the merits of the 
case were so decidedly strong in my own favor, that I could safely 
imitate the example of Mr Fox, in the British Parliament, whose 
habit it was to recapitulate his adversary's argument, and to restate 
it more strongly than it had been stated by himself,— to build it up 
and clamp it, and then — demolish it. I thought I could afford to do 
this ; and therefore I said I would " concede" to my friend, that 
*' the use of the rod, in school, is twice cursed," &c. Yet this 
concession to my opponent, made to be answered, and as I believe, 
actually answered, and on the spot, by preponderating considerations 
4 



26 

urged by me, — you, Mr. Smith, having expunged the concessory 
words, both hefore and after ^ for they followed as well as preceded, — 
have quoted as my language, and as proof of my opinion. It has 
pleased you, Mr. Smith, to do this fourth thing! 

5. " Masters who use the rod, you designate as ' consenting to 
turn fiagellators to the parish.'' " 

This expression is not mine. Never, in any way, have I used 
it, approved it, or assented to it. It is taken from the same article 
of the same correspondent, above referred to, — an article which I 
vehemently protested against, on the spot. This expression, too, not 
mine, contested and, as I think, refuted by me, at the time, you have 
quoted as mine. It has pleased you, Mr. Smith, to do this fifth thing ! 

6. " You affirm that it is a greater evil to keep boys in subjection 
by the terror of the rod, than to turn them loose into the streets,'''' 

Precisely as before ! This sentiment is not from any thing I ever 
wrote. It is from the above mentioned communication ; and so far 
from adopting or endorsing it, I replied to it, on the spot, as follows : 

" If, as is suggested in this excellent communication, [the com- 
munication discussed many topics, besides that of corporal punish- 
ment,] every scholar is to be turned out of school, who cannot be 
managed by persuasion in it, we should have, on an average, at the 
very lowest calculation, more than one scholar expelled for each of 
our summer and each of our winter schools ; — that is, more than 
three thousand for each season, and therefore more than six 
thousand annually ; — six thousand children, released from all fear, 
from all immediate pain, from all salutary restraints, and turned out 
to be marauders and freebooters on society. Who can contemplate 
this result, and say that it is a less evil than that of corporal punish- 
ment in schools !" Yet this answer of mine, immediately following 
the above sentiment, you not only omit, but you proceed to say, that I 
" affirm" the very sentiment I so earnestly combatted. With just as 
much truth might you say, that I was the author of your " New Carl" 
sermon. It has pleased you, Mr. Smith, to do this sixth thing ! 

7. '■'• In your Eighth Annual ReporC — '■'• I find in almost every 
instance, in the school returns, in which anything is said against the 
use of the rod, or the ability to govern without it for a season, the 
fact has a conspicuous place in the report,— published in capitals or 

italics.^' 



27 

In the first place, there is not a " school return" in my Eighth 
Report; nor aught that bears any resemblance to a " school return," 
on this subject. 2. In the Report of the Board, — not mine, — there 
are some letters, — not school returns, — highly commendatory of 
teachers who had been educated at one of the Normal schools. 3. 
The capitals and italics which you intimate to be mine, and used for 
the purpose of arresting attention, were copied from the letters 
themselves ; and, if offences at all, are the offences of their respec- 
tive authors, not mine. 4. There is nothing said, in any of those 
letters, as you have represented, against the ability to govern with- 
out using the rod. It has pleased you, Mr Smith, to do this seventh 
thing! 

8. " You further say, that when the right kind of teachers shall 
he secured, the rod, or corporal punishment, will come into ' total 
disuse.^ " 

Here the words " total disuse," which you have quoted as mine, 
are not mine, but were quoted by rne from the antagonist with whom 
I was then dealing, and were signalized as his, by quotation marks. 
It has pleased you, Mr Smith, to do this eighth thing ! 

The above eight cases are to be found in twenty-one consecutive 
lines, pp. 40, 41, of your " Reply." What can be done with a let- 
ter of twenty-five pages, filled with base coin from the same mintage ? 
Certainly, Mr. Smith, you must have credit for one thing. In one re- 
spect you are unanswerable ! — you invent so fast ! There is a prov- 
erb, homely and detestable, inherited from lawless, feudal times, 
which says that one may as well be hung for an old sheep as for a 
Iamb. You have gone for the whole flock ! 

You next affirm that I " assume the native purity of children." 
This you have done four several times ; pp. 42, 45, 46, 48. This 
comes under the same category with the rest of your assertions. I 
never, by pen, speech or thought, affirmed the native purity of chil- 
dren. I do not believe it, — never believed it. My writings abound 
with expressions incompatible with such a belief. Take the follow- 
ing specimen, from my Ninth Report, p. 65, which, if you are ever 
to be believed, you must have seen : " Were children born with per- 
fect natures, we might expect that they would gradually purify 
themselves from the vices and corruptions which are now almost en- 
forced upon them by the examples of the world. But the same na- 



28 

ture by which the parents sunk into error and sin, pre-adapts the 
children to follow in the course of ancestral degeneracy.''' After 
the public had read similar sentiments from my pen, and heard 
them from my lips, for ten years, it is impossible you should have 
expected that any intelligent and candid man would believe you. 
You must, therefore, have addressed yourself to another class. 

It is in this connection you say, that you " object to [my] the'ory 
of school discipline, because of its theological character.^' Here, 
as every where else, you have sought to give your attack a sectarian 
turn. You argue the necessity of the rod in schools, on strict 
Calvinistic ground, — on the ground of total depravity. I am ready 
to meet you on this ground, and to show how short sighted and 
sophistical your argument is. 

All children, say you, are totally depraved ; and God, through 
Solomon, has commanded parents and teachers to use the rod, in 
order to restrain and reform them. They who oppose this view, 
you add, " throw themselves across the word of God." Then does 
it not inevitably follow that all children must be regularly flogged, 
until they are regenerated ? If you dare to make a single exception, 
in favor of any unsanctified child, however docile, confiding and 
submissive he or she may be, you are ruined. For if there may 
be an exception in regard to one, how can you stop at ten or ten 
thousand ? Every parent or teacher, then, who does not flog all his 
unregenerate children, or scholars, " throws himself across the word 
of God." Do you say ; " Not, perhaps, every child, and every 
scholar ; for one may be deterred by the example of another ?" 
Surely, if mere example would do this, is there not a stock of 
examples already laid up, ample enough to last to the end of time ? 
Again ; if the unregenerate must be flogged, because they are 
unregenerate, then, by parity of reasoning, the converted must be 
exempts because they are converted. But, nevertheless, do we not 
see some grown men and women, who have once given evidence 
of a saving change, temporarily backsliding, and requiring church 
discipline ; and may we not, therefore, expect the same thing of some 
children } If so, then the application of your rule to the converted, 
as well as to the unconverted, fails. 

Again ; as to frequency, or continuity, of flogging. If Solo- 
mon commands all parents and teacliers to chasten every child, in 



29 

their houses or schoolrooms, and not let their " souls spare for his 
crying," how frequent are the floggings to be, or how long are 
they to be continued ? Are the inflictions to be so short, as to allow 
many intervals, each day ; or are they to be so long as to leave time 
for but few intervals ? Do you say there may be a case, even of an 
unconverted child, where one flogging will answer for a whole life, 
then why not ten such cases, or ten thousand ?- Will you assign 
limits to the Divine command ? If one flogging, or one himdred, 
may be enough to be given to a school child, then, in some towns, 
the children may all have received their quota at home, or in the pri- 
mary school, and so this form of penalty may be dispensed with, in 
all the upper schools. No, Mr. Smith, your sectarian argument binds 
you in the chains of an adamantine necessity, to flog eiwry child, both 
at home and at school, at least until the heart has been renewed by 
the Holy Spirit ; and every Christian parent or teacher, who has a son, 
a daughter, or a scholar, whom he has never flogged, has "thrown 
himself across the word of God." How, on your own ground, 
would one find time to flog all, in a large school, or in a large family. 

As expository of a view which seems to me better to com- 
mend itself to the good sense and the Christian feeling of the com- 
munity, I subjoin a passage from one of my own reports, made 
to the Board and sanctioned by them, — which you have referred to, 
to condemn. The extract is this : 

" Order is emphatically the first law of the schoolroom. Order 
must be preserved, because it is a prerequisite to every thing else 
that is desirable. If a school cannot be continued with order, it 
should not be continued without it, but discontinued. After all 
motives of duty, of afiection, of the love of knowledge and of good 
repute, have been faithfully tried and tried in vain, I see not why 
this 'strange work,' [punishment,] may not be admitted into the 
human, as well as into the divine government. Nor will it do to 
prohibit the exercise of this power altogether, because it is sometimes 
abused. The remedy for abuse is not prohibition, but discretion. 
This, however, is certain, that when a teacher preserves order and 
secures progress, the minimum of punishment shows the maximum 
of qualifications." Fifth Annual Report, 57,8. 

I think we are commanded to punish the disobedient and lawless, 
precisely as we are commanded to visit the sick, to feed the hungry 
and clothe the naked, — tiot every moment of the tim^y — but with 



30 

discretion, according to the exigencies of each case, in the love of 
man and in the fear of God ; and, as it is the duty of us all to relieve 
mankind from disease, hunger and nakedness, as fast as we can, so, 
as fast as we can, we should strive to bring in higher motives and 
examples, in order to supersede the necessity of punishment, whether 
In school or elsewhere. 

RELIGION IN SCHOOLS. 

Your charge here is, — " You are opposed to religion in schools." 
Your original charge was, that the Board and myself had aided in 
getting " all religious instruction''' out of schools, and in " counter- 
poising," or neutralizing all religious instruction given at home, and 
in the Sabbath school. 

I complain, here, that not only are all and each of the particular 
assertions in support of your present charge, without any foundation 
in truth ; but, as I will show you, they all proceed upon a false hy- 
pothesis, — upon such false assumptions as would vitiate any conclu- 
sion, however logically deducible from them. 

You speak again and again, of my having " ruled" religious in- 
struction out of the schools. But where is the order, direction, re- 
quest, suggestion even, ever made by me to any school committee 
man, or school teacher, in the State, that he should withhold religious 
instruction from the school? The constitution and laws declare what 
shall be taught and what shall not be taught, on the subject of reli- 
gion in our schools. The school committees administer the laws. 
Neither the Board nor myself has ever sought, in the slightest de- 
gree, to encroach upon their prerogatives. All our united power 
cannot alter a book, or a lesson, except so far as committees ap- 
prove and direct. And it is remarkable, and would of itself excite 
suspicion of your honesty, that, through all the pages, where you 
charge me with being " opposed to religion in schools" ; with " pro- 
claiming what we may teach and what we may not, of religion, in 
schools" ; with ruling out " common truths," " which are essential 
to a virtuous life, as well as to the salvation of the soul" ; with sub- 
stituting " for the principles of piety, allowed by the Constitution, 
nothing above, nothing more than Deism, bald and blank," &c. die. ; — 
I say it is remarkable, that for the support of all these charges, 
thickly strown along your pages, you have not adduced a single sen- 



31 

tence, or word, that I have ever delivered in any oral or written 
address, or have ever published in any report, or have ever written 
for any page of the Journal, — not a word ! 

You must allow me here, Mr Smith, to speak in decided tones. 
You are touching solemn matters, at least with heedlessness, if not 
with wickedness aforethought. You accuse me before the world, of 
being opposed to religion in our schools. I regard hostility to reli- 
gion in our schools, as the greatest crime which I could commit 
against man or against God. Had I the power, I would sooner re- 
peat the massacre of Herod, than I would keep back religion from 
the young. My own consciousness acquits me of your accusation. 
I call the All-searching Eye to witness that it is as false as any thing 
ever engendered in the heart of man or fiend. What right have you to 
say that I am opposed to religion in our schools, because I may en- 
tertain, or express privately, certain opinions not exactly coincident 
with your opinions ; when, perhaps, before the moon changes, you 
will tear your name from your present creed, and subscribe another .'' 
If my godlessness consists in not thinking as you happen now to 
think, ascend your papal throne, proclaim your infallibility, — be in- 
fallible, in the same way, more than a twelve-month at a time, — and 
then excommunicate, imprison, torture, burn. But, thank heaven ! 
you have got to build your throne first. We are in the nineteenth 
century, and not in the fourteenth. For the destruction or imprison- 
ment of heretics, in Massachusetts, fagots will not burn, and granite 
walls are dust, which the breath can scatter. But because weak and 
fallible man can no longer impose his faith upon us, are we absolved 
from our allegiance to heaven ? God forbid ! What religion, then, 
shall be inculcated upon the young, in our public schools ? I an- 
swer, — not my religion, nor yours, as such, nor the religion of any 
class or sect, — but the religion of the Bible. If your religion can be 
found in the Bible, then your religion is taught in the schools. If 
my religion is in it, then my religion is taught there. If we are 
both in error, then let us rejoice that there is a power which, if it 
fails to rectify our faith, will save us at least from the woe of having 
transmitted a false faith to others, so far as we had sought to do. 
The Bible is one and unchangeable. Like Him whose providence it 
records, it is the same yesterday, to-day and forever. Customs and 
manners may change ; arts and sciences may advance or recede ; 



3-2 

empires may rise or fall ; but there stands this Celestial Luminary, 
ever shining upon the world with the same unquenchable light ; and 
should ignorance and superstition, intolerance and bigotry, ever tran- 
siently obscure the brightness of its beams, yet we know they are 
only like the clouds suspended in our atmosphere, and intercepting 
the rays of the sun ; and though, for a few miles above our heads, 
and for the handbreadth of our horizon, the sky may look murky 
and dark, yet above that curtain, we know there is an immensity of 
light ready aj^ain to pour back upon us, and to flood the world with 
its radiance. But suppose the interpretation of any man, or of any 
dynasty, could be made authoritative, and be enforced upon the com- 
munity by legal pains or penalties, or be inculcated upon the recep- 
tive minds of childnm, as the only true interpretation ; then the Bible 
loses lis character of permanency ; it becomes one thing under one 
ruler, and another thing under another ruler ; it speaks one language 
under oiie government, and another language under another govern- 
ment. It changes its doctrines as its priests are changed, and the 
Uacaof to-day becomes the Raibi of tomorrow. I maintain, there- 
fore, that the Bible shall go into our public schools enshielded from 
harm, by the great Protestant doctrine of the inviolability of con- 
science, the right and the sanctity of private judgment. I have en- 
deavored to act in accordance with these great principles, so funda- 
mental both to religion and to liberty ; and I challenge any author, 
bookseller, school committee man, teacher, or other person, official 
or unofficial, to say that I have ever sought to invade his province, 
or to suborn him to act in contravention of these rules. They are the 
principles which the Pilgrim Fathers consecrated by their self-expa- 
triation ; — they are the principles solemnly ratified and confirmed by 
our constitution and laws ; and, unhappily for your schemes, they 
are principles deemed sacred and inviolable by a vast mnjorily of 
the people of Massachusetts. As for muzzling the mouth of every 
school teacher and every school committee man, or condemning 
them for the expression of a private opinion on any matter connected 
with the interpretation of the law, or the interpretation of the Bible, 
it is a gross violation of all Protestant principles ; but it is what you 
have sought to do to me. 

Of course, I refer here only to Public Schools, for which all the 
citizens are taxed. 



33 

1 now come to your proofs that I am opposed to religion in schools ; 
— having before said that you have not brought forward a single 
sentence from any report, address, or editorial article, I have ever 
written or made. 

Your first proof of my being oppo'Sed to religion in schools, is, 
that the Principal of the West Newton Normal school, " has issued 
a circular, in which he makes it the duty of his scholars, wind and 
weather permitting, to attend church half a day on the Sabbath, and do 
their walking for recreation on that day, in the morning and evening." 

Who are the Special Visiters of this school ? I answer, three or- 
thodox gentlemen, — John W. James, Esq., of Boston, the Rev. Dr. 
Humphrey, late President of Amherst College, and the Rev. H. B. 
Hooker, of Falmouth. Are they opposed to religion in schools.? 

But you say, Mr. Pierce's circular " makes it the duty of his schol- 
ars," — " to do their walking for recreation on that day, [Sunday,] in 
the morning and evening." This is unpardonable slander. The 
word " recreation" is not in the circular. The idea of " recreation" 
is not in it. You might, with just as much truth, have foisted in the 
word " bowling^'''' Sunday morning and evening, (and yoit will under- 
stand what I mean by this,) as " recreation." On this point, I leave 
you to the forgiveness of all the teachers and the young ladies com- 
posing that school. 

But let us hear the judgment of honest men, on this subject. 

On the 3d day of Dec. last, about the very time when you were con- 
cocting these libels, and, (I add upon good authority,) when you 
went to the Newton school, incog., to spy out the land, the above 
named Visiters, — Messrs. James, Humphrey and Hooker, — made 
their annual examination of the school. In their report to the Board 
of Education, signed by them all, after stating that they " regard the 
Sabbalh and public worship, as divine institutions, intimately connect- 
ed with the best welfare of society, and believe that an exemplary 
regard for them should be manifested by those beneficiaries of the 
State, who take so important a part iu forming the character of the 
rising generation," they go on to say, that they had examined all 
the reports, in regard to attending divine service, and, " considering 
the diversity of religious sentiments in the school, and the remote- 
ness of some of the churches, they [the reports] presented, on. the 
whole, a favorable view of .the habits of the pupils in this particular." 
They close their report, in other respects highly complimentary, 
5 



34 

with the following sentence : " The Visiters, in conclusion, cheer- 
fully express their conviction, that this school exhibits the elements 
of substantial prosperity, and rejoice in believing that it has had, 
and will continue to have, eminent influence for good, on the interests 
of education in this Commonwealth." 

This is the testimony of the above named gentlemen, respecting 
the usefulness of this school, and the exemplariness of its pupils in 
regard to attending divine service ; and Mr. Pierce's circular, is the 
first proof offered by you that I am opposed to religion in schools ! 

Your next proof is a reference to a selected article in the Common 

School Journal, for August, 1843. Here if my character for truth was 

as good as that of the old Roman, Regulus, or did my sanctity equal 

that of Enoch, I could hardly expect to be believed, did I merely recite 

what you have done. I will, therefore, quote your evidence entire, 

and follow it, by the article to which you refer ; so that every reader 

may have an opportunity to do justice to your creative posver. 

This, then, is your second proof : 

" Under the caption, ' What shall be my Sabbath Reading,' your Jour- 
nal teaches that we must road no books, except those of a liberal charac- 
ter.' ' Sermons and religious tracts' I must not read, ' if they make me 
selfish ;' i. e. inculcate the difference between the righteous and the wick- 
ed ; or make me ' distrustful of my fellow man,'or despairing of his ad- 
vancement :' i. e. that teach natural depravity ; such books are to be avoid- 
ed on the Sabbath, I commend the good sense of the writer in making no 
allusion to the Bible, in such a category, as a book fit to be read upon the 
Sabbath.— Jowrna/, Vol. V. 946. Is there no dogmatism here .'" — Reply, 
p. 45. 

Though the article in the Journal to which the above refers, is of 
a length which renders it inconvenient to be transcribed, yet I sub- 
join every word of it, to which, by any possibility, your criticisms 
can refer : — 

WHAT SHALL BE MY SABBATH READING.? 

I HAVE determined that I will spend my Sabbath as a day of rest from 
the labors of the week, and I will devote it, so far as I can, to the im- 
provement and elevation of my spiritual character. I will endeavor to 
exclude schemes of gain, which have occupied so many of my daily 
thoughts, as I find myself imperceptibly too much engrossed by them ; 
and I tremble lest I become a slave of mammon. I desire no longer to 
indulge in dreams of pleasure, lest the silken net of sensuality be cast 
over me before I am aware. And plans of ambition ; — they surely belong 
not to the peace and rest of this day. If then I free myself from the in- 
fluence of these evil spirits which have hitherto made me almost a pris- 
oner, and if I refuse to waste the precious hours in sloth, I shall have 
some portion of each Sabbath to spend in reading. What shall it be ? 
What reading will be most favorable to the high, and pure, and holy 



35 

thoughts which I desire to cherish ? What would the Savior, if I could 
ask him, approve ? He has taught me that it is lawful to do good on the 
Sabbath day. What is good ? 

He has told me that unless I humble m3'self as a little child, I cannot en- 
ter the kingdom of heaven. Humility then is an essential doctrine of His 
gospel, and my reading must be favorable to humility. I must avoid 
what has a tendency to make me self-satisfied, or proud of my thoughts or 
opinions, or whatever belongs to myself Pride, in every form, is the great 
enemy of the spiritual life. Is there not danger of my becoming proud 
even of my religious opinions, my religious character, my religious humili- 
ty ? I am often aware of a feeling of this kind ; and if it be real, and the 
Savior is not mistaken in the stress he lays upon humility, what is my 
religion good for? Can spiritual pride, or any pride, be consistent with 
the spirit of the lowly Jesus ? 

Another lesson which my Savior teaches is charitableness. " Judge 
not," are his words; and one who was instructed of Him has told me what 
charitableness is ; — that charity " thinketh no evil." I must, therefore, not 
read any thing which diminislies my charity for my fellow-creatures, — for 
their character, their purposes or their opinions. Whatever is written in 
an uncharitable spirit, no matter what it is, I will endeavor to avoid. 
Let me not be deceived by names. What tends to make me uncharitable, 
to think evil of others in comparison with myself, cannot be less harmful, 
coming under a cloak of a sermon or a religious tract, than if it came 
under the name of scoffing or unbelief. Probably it will be more so ; for, 
in the latter case, I should be on my guard ; in tiie former, I should not. 
Whatever renders me uncharitable must be wanting in that Christian 
spirit whose most marked characteristic is charity. 

My Savior teaches me that my first duly is to love my Father in 
Heaven. My heart tells me that the highest privilege is to draw nigh to 
Him and worship Him. Whatever book, therefore, tends to make me love 
Him, fills me with reverence for his character, makes me rejoice in His 
works, and leads me to exclaim with delight, "my Father made them all," — 
must be useful reading. And whatever makes me doubt of His goodness. 
His justice, or His mercy, must be injurious, and ought to be avoided. ^ 

The second commandment of the New Testament is like the first. 
" Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." How divine are both these 
commandments ! Those books must be useful which quicken my love of 
my neighbor, and show me how I may benefit him ; which increase my 
sympathy for him, and interest me in what tends to advance and improve 
society. Those books must be bad or doubtful which make me selfish, or 
distrustful of my fellow-man, or despairing of his advancement. 

The most comprehensive charge of the Savior is. Be ye therefore 
perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect." 

In your estimation, then, Mr Smith, there is not only no religion 

in the above article, but it is so irreligious, that printing it in the 

Journal, is proof of my being opposed to religion in schools. It is 

then, your decision, that there is no religion in obeying the command 

to rest from labor on tlie Sabbath day, — none in shutting out the 

world and solemnizing the thoughts ; none in the spirit which asks, 

" What would the Savior, if I could ask him, approve .^" — none in 

humility ; none in seeking to extirpate a Pharisaical pride ; none in 

charitableness ; none in loving God, in drawing nigh unto Him, and 



36 

worshipping Him ; none in loving our neighbor as ourself, — on 
which, it was said by another authority, hang all the law and the 
prophets ; — none, finally, in the fervent aspiration, " to be perfect, 
even as our Father in heaven is perfect." According to you, there 
is -nothing of religion in all this ; nay, to print it is proof of my hos- 
tility to religion in schools. 

In the whole passage there is not a word, to give counte- 
nance to your first two commentaries. Your last commentary is 
this : " I commend the good sense of the writer in making no allu- 
sion to the Bible, in such a category, as a book fit to be read on 
the Sabbath." Was ever any thing written which more certainly 
presupposed the reading of the Bible, or that showed a heart more 
deeply imbued with its spirit .? As the fragrance exhaled from one 
who has been wandering amid spice-groves, reveals where he has 
been ; so did the writer of this article prove, more strongly than by 
any words he could use, that he had held daily communion with the 
Bible, by the " odor of sanctity" with which each paragraph is redo- 
lent. The main object of the writer seems to be to point to the Bible, 
as the source of all the Christian graces he recommends. 

Are all the five hundred volumes of your Sunday School Library 
free from all taint of such irreligion as is contained in the above ex- 
tract } 

I wish I could believe that, in the strait to which your intellect 
was driven to find proofs in support of your accusation, you had here 
done violence to your heart ; but I see no evidence of this ; your 
whole nature seems to have consented to the deed. 

But can blackness be blackened, Mr Smith .•* or total depravity de- 
praved } or your conduct, on this point, be made to appear worse 
than it now appears } 

When the above quoted article which you have cited as proof of 
my hostility to religion in schools, was published in the Journal, I 
was four thousand miles from Boston. It appeared Aug. 15, 1843. 
I left the country in May preceding, and returned in the following 
November. While absent, the whole control of the Journal was in 
the hands of Mr. George B. Emerson, who, as it appears on the pages 
of the Journal itself, was the Editor pro. tern. You refer to such a 
passage, as proof of my irreligion, and attribute its insertion to me, 
when you must have known that, whether sacred or profane, it was 
not inserted by me, but in my absence. 

Another of your proofs that I am adverse to religion in schools, is 



37 

derived from my obedience to the law of the State, which forbids 
sectarian instruction. Here you say, and repeat, that no "class" of 
men, or no " respectable class" of men, in our community, have 
urged, or desire, the introduction of sectarianism into our schools. 
I affirm, on the contrary, that ninety-nine hundredths of all the oppo- 
sition which the Board or myself have ever encountered, has been 
excited against us because we abstained from favoring sectarian in- 
struction. Owing to my official engagements, I have not been so 
extensive a reader of the religious newspapers and periodicals, as I 
have desired ; nor have I preserved a tenth part of the evidence on 
this subject, which, from time to time, has fallen under my eye. I 
have, however, before me, a few copies of two of the religious news- 
papers, printed in Boston. From a part of these I will make a few 
selections, illustrative of their general spirit. The selections from 
one of the works shall go back to a time shortly after the establish- 
ment of the Board ; those from the other shall be taken from a pe- 
riod more recent. 

In an article in the Boston Recorder, of Jan. 18, 1839, highly 
complimentary to the Board and its Secretary, the course was 
sketched out which they were called upon to pursue ; and the means 
were particularized, — such as " ministerial associations," " church 
conferences," " social prayer meetings," " the periodical press," and 
"the pulpit," — by which a public opinion was to be manufactured, 
to stimulate and sustain them in the work they were summoned to 
perform. The climax of the new order of things to be ushered in, 
was this : " the grand doctrines of the Gospel must be regularly and 
clearly taught." All know what must be meant in that paper, by 

" the GRAND DOCTRINES." 

In the Recorder of March 1, 1S39, a very talented and respecta- 
ble clergyman, in commenting upon our statute law, which declares 
that " the school committee shall never direct to be purchased or 
used in any of the town schools, any school books which are calcu- 
lated to favor the tenets of any particular sect of Christians," uses 
the following language : " If their object, [the object of the framers 
of the law,] was to exclude books which teach the leading doctrines 
of Protestantism ; or, to be more definite, the leading doctrines held 
by the Pilgrim Fathers of New England ; or, to be more definite 
still, the prominent truths-embraced by the evangelical churches of 
Massachusetts, then it is no matter how soon the law is repealed." 

In another part of the same article, the writer expounds his plan, 



38 

which is, that, " the majority must govern." " If the majority," saya 
he, " of any town be Universalists," " they will naturally have books 
and teachers which will inculcate the peculiar sentiments of that 
sect, and there is no remedy." " If the major part of the inhabi- 
tants of another town are Orthodox," "they should have the privi- 
lege of introducing the Assembly's Shorter Catechism, if they please, 
into their schools, and of employing teachers who will thoroughly 
indoctrinate the children into the religious faith of their fathers, if 
the majority of another town are not only evangelical in their prin- 
ciples, but are also holy and spiritual in their practice, the State 
should permit them to make their schools bear directly upon the re- 
generation and salvation of their children." 

Under date of March 22, after quoting, with commendation, a long 
passage from my First Annual Report to the Board, the writer gently 
chides my short-comings in the following strain : " How gratifying 
it would have been to many of your fellow-citizens, if the sentence 
had continued to run in something of this strain ; — ' the pages are 
wanting which teach the ever-during relations of men to God, and 
Christ, and eternity ; which teach the lapsed state of human nature ; 
the necessity, not of the improvement of the moral tastes already ex- 
isting, but of their entire transformation by the renewing grace of the 
Holy Spirit; the high importance of secret prayer, not performed as 
a penance, but from a love of communion with God ; the need of re- 
ceiving those daily baptisms from on high, which shall purify the 
affections of the heart, and induce the children to consecrate the 
" dew of their youth' to the service of Jesus Christ and his Church to . 
the spread of the gospel, and the salvation of this apostate world." 

Again ; — " public sentiment demands, that the interests of educa 
tion be placed under the direction and control" " of that honest, 
manly piety, which regards the rising generation as destined to re- 
ceive in this probationary state, that cast of character, which will fit 
them tosing with the seraphim, or wail with the devil and his angels." 

Again ; — " the Bible, insisting on the great facts of man's moral 
ruin, of his need of a Redeemer, of regeneration and sanctificalion, 
to fit him for the highest measure of usefulness on earth, and for the 
holy employments of the redeemed in heaven, — should be daily and 
thoroughly taught in the schools. Nothing can be a substitute for 
this. Nothing will satisfy a large portion of the people of the Com- 
monwealth, and secure their cordial co-operation, but the faithful in- 
culcation of those religious truths, which tend to the BALVikTioN of 



39 

THB SOUL. Unless our schools have a direct bearing on this most 
IMPORTANT END, all else besides, 

' Is empty talk, 
Of old achitvements, and despair of n»w.' " 

What think you, Mr. Smith, or what thought you, in 1839 ; — would 
this favor the tenets of any particular sect or not ? 

I have before me a very few copies of the " Christian Witness 
and Church Advocate," for the year 1844. This paper is the organ 
of the Episcopalians. I believe it is true of all the passages which 
I shall cite, that they came from the pen of the Editor or Assistant 
Editor of that paper, or were expressly approved and endorsed by 
one or both of them. 

In a series of articles, commencing Feb. 23, 1844, the principal 
ground of complaint against our present school system is that 
" all teaching of what Orthodox men hold to be the doctrines of 
grace is excluded." See March 8, March 29, May 17, &c. 

The Church of England is impliedly defended and approved for 
having " resolved that Christianity, as understood and taught by the 
Established Church of the realm, shall be taught also to the young 
in all schools." 

In the paper for March 29, the Editor says, " Of what particular 
sect does it favor the tenets to teach that " we are by nature children 
of wrath .^" "We wish to have the young trained for heaven as 
well as earth," — " we wish them to have access not to the negatives 
of a sect, but to the positive and life-giving faith which, ' the holy 
church, [the holy episcopal church,] throughout all the world doth 
acknowledge.' " 

Under date of May 17, an Honorable correspondent who stands 
deservedly high in the Episcopal ranks, and with whom the Editor 
zealously cooperated, complains that the " Assembly's Catechism," 
was not taught, under the law, every Saturday afternoon, as formerly. 
" The idea of a religion," says he, " to be permitted to be taught 
in our schools, in which all are at present agreed, is a mockery." — 
" As to precepts^ perhaps, there may be a pretty general agreement, 
and that this is one great branch of the Christian scheme, we allow. 
But is this all, — all that the sons of the Puritans are willing to have 
taught in their public schools ?" " The teaching of the evangelical 
doctrines of the gospel is not the teaching of Sectarianism, according 
to the letter of the statute itself." Christian Witness, July 12, 1S44. 
" The law" — " can be made" — " by no fair interpretation to shut 



40 

out the evangelical doctrines of the gospel from our Common 
Schools." 

" The believers in the evangelical doctrines of the gospel, consti- 
tuting as they do a large majority of the people of the Common- 
wealth, have a right to demand that their own views, and not the 
views of the minority, shall be taught in the schools." 

Even during this present January, the Boston Recorder, in an 
editorial article, has commended the submission to the majority of 
each district^ of the question, what religious instruction shall be 
given in school. 

I have in my possession the printed report of a school committee, 
in which the teaching of the Westminster Catechism, every Saturday, 
is commended to all the teachers in the town. 

I have seen Newcomb's Bible Questions introduced into a public 
school, under the control of an orthodox committee. 

In a long and elaborate article of a religious quarterly, the school 
systems of Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania have been 
condemned in the gross, because they do not teach the evangelical 
doctrines in the Common Schools. 

Now the above, Mr Smith, are but specimens of what, if time and 
inclination would allow, I could show to have been demanded for 
the last eight years, by a party in our community. Yet you tell 
me, " you cannot put your finger on the request, from any respecta- 
ble class of the community," to have more religious instruction in 
our schools, than the laws and constitution allow. I leave you to settle 
the question of " respectaMlity'''' with the above authorities ; (I think 
many of them " respectable,'''' though greatly mistaken,) but that 
they are a " class," no man but yourself would deny. That they 
are a small class, I gladly admit ; for the Methodists and the Baptists, 
though orthodox, refuse to confederate with them. The " Christian 
Watchman," the organ of the Baptists, and the " Olive Branch," 
the organ of the Methodists, and the great majority, as I suppose, of 
the Congregationalists, disclaim their fellowship and condemn their 
schemes. 

I leave you for a moment, Mr. Smith, in order to address a few 
considerations to those who think that doctrinal religion should be 
taught in our schools ; and who would empower each town or school 
district to determine the kind of doctrine to be taught. It is easy 
to see that the experiment would not stop with having half a dozen 
conflicting creeds taught by authority of law, in the different schools 



41 

of the same town or vicinity. Majorities will change in the same 
place. One sect may have the ascendency, to-day ; another, tomor- 
row. This year, there will be three Persons in the Godhead ; 
next year, but One ; and the third year, the Trinity will be restored, 
to hold its precarious sovereignty, until it shall be again dethroned 
by the worms of the dust it has made. This year, the everlasting 
fires of hell will burn, to terrify the impenitent ; next year, and 
without any repentance, its eternal flames will be extinguished, — to 
be rekindled forever, or to be quenched forever, as it may be decided 
at annual town meetings. This year, under Congregational rule, 
the Rev. Mr. So and So, and the Rev. Dr. So and So, will be on the 
committee; but' next year, these Reverends and Reverend Doctors 
will be plain Misters, — never having had apostolical consecration 
from the Bishop. This year, the ordinance of baptism is inefficacious 
without immersion ; next year one drop of water will be as good as 
forty fathoms. Children attending the district school will be taught 
one way ; going from the district school to the town high school, 
they will be taught another way. In controversies involving such 
momentous interests, the fiercest party spirit will rage, and all the 
contemplations of heaven be poisoned by the passions of earth. 
Will not town lines and school district lines be altered, to restore an 
unsuccessful, or to defeat a successful party ? Will not fiery zealots 
move from place to place, to turn the theological scale, as, it is said, 
is sometimes now done, to turn a political one ? And will not the 
godless make a merchandise of religion by being bribed to do the 
same thing ? Can aught be conceived more deplorable, more fatal 
to the interests of the young than this ? Such strifes and persecutions 
on the question of total depravity, as to make all men depraved at 
any rate ; and such contests about the nature and the number of 
Persons in the Godhead in heaven, as to make little children atheists 
upon earth. 

If the question, "What theology shall be taught in school.^" 
is to be decided by districts or towns, then all the prudential and the 
superintending school committees must be chosen with express refer- 
ence to their faith ; the creed of every candidate for teaching must 
be investigated ; and when litigations arise, — and such a system will 
breed them in swarms, — an ecclesiastical tribunal, — some Star 
Chamber, or High Commission Court, must be created to decide 
them. If the Governor is to have power to appoint the Judges of 
6 



42 

this Spiritual Tribunal, he also must be chosen with reference to the 
appointments he will make, and so too must the Legislators who are 
to define their power, and to give them the Purse and the Sword of 
the State, to execute their authority. Call such officers by the 
name of Judge and Governor, or Cardinal and Pope, the thing will 
he the same ! The establishment of the true faith will not stop with 
the schoolroom. Its grasping jurisdiction will extend over all 
schools, over all private faith and public worship ; until at last, after 
all our centuries of struggle and of suffering, it will come back to 
the inquisition, the fagot and the rack ! 

Let me ask here, too, where is the consistency of those, who advo- 
cate the right of a toion or a district to determine, by a majority, 
what theology shall be taught in the schools, but deny the same right 
to the State 7 Does not this inconsistency blaze out into the faces 
of such advocates, so as to make them /eeZ, if they are too blind to 
see 1 This would be true, even if the State had written out the the- 
ology it would enforce. But ours has not. It has only said that no 
one sect shall obtain any advantage over other sects, by means of 
the school system, which, for purposes of self-preservation, it has 
established. 

It is sometimes further said, that under our present laws, the 
Christians called Liberal, have an advantage over those called Evan- 
gelical, for two reasons ; firsts because what is taught in school as 
religion, is taught as the ivhole of religion, when it is only a part. 
But here the fact is not so. I have never known or heard of an in- 
stance where it was so. It would be a plain contravention of the 
law so to teach. A teacher has no right to say that what he is al- 
lowed to teach in school is the whole ; and, if not so taught in 
school, every child has opportunity enough out of school, to know 
that what is taught in school, is not considered the whole of religion, 
as held by any of the various sects. 

The other alleged advantage is, that if the evangelical doctrines 
are excluded from school, then what is left is Liberal Christianity. 
But is it not obvious that one party suffers as much by being de- 
barred from contesting and confuting the doctrines of its opponents, 
as the other suffers by being debarred from inculcating those doc- 
trines .? The question in discussion between the sects is, the truth or 
error of certain theological points. One sect could make the schools 
a powerful instrumentality for spreading them ; another sect could 
make the schools as powerful an instrumentality for extirpating 



43 

them. But botli parties are debarred from using the schools for any 
such purpose ; and thus the sacrifice is equal. The case must be 
argued in another forum. 

Suppose the question to be between the Evangelical and the Cath- 
olic denominations ; would the former be content to stop with incul- 
cating its own views affirmatively ? Would it not also teach the 
error of a belief in purgatory, the saving efficacy of relics and 
masses for the dead ? 

I come now, Mr. Smith, to your only remaining proof, — an alleged 
conversation with the Rev. Mr. Moore. Two things here demand 
your attention. First, you say that the object of a visit made by me 
to Mr. Moore, was " to induce him to correct certain expressions 
made in the Recorder, which you informed him had done you injus- 
tice." Totally and unequivocally untrue! You give us no variety, 
Mr. Smith ! I cannot conceive of a man so enamored of falsehood, 
that he would not like an occasional truth, if for no other reason than 
to whet his appetite, and renew his relish for the false. But you 
cannot serve your readers with truth, even for a condiment ! The 
call I made on Mr. Moore, was at the suggestion of, and in company 
with, a gentleman, orthodox in his denominational connections, and 
with whose character for truth and veracity, no friend of Mr. Moore 
would venture to bring his in competition. He knows, and if neces- 
sary, will testify, that my visit to Mr. Moore had nothing to do with 
asking redress for any injustice against me, committed by that paper. 
I had long before learned to bear its accusations and its thwartings 
in silence, and with what meekness I could. 

When our mutual friend, and my companion in that visit, (whose 
name, at his request, I omit, although I am a great loser by doing 
so,) saw your statement of the alleged conversation with Mr. Moore, 
he immediately declared to a by-stander, that no conversation like 
that reported by yon, had transpired iri his presence, during our call 
on Mr. Moore. Taking occasion, on the same day, to see Mr. Moore, 
he called his attention to your story. Mr. Moore then said that he 
had, some time before, — (was it after your sermon was preached, 
Mr. Smith, or before ?) — related such a conversation to Mr. Smith, 
but that he had no idea that Mr. Smith would make such use of it 
as he had made, and did not expect it would be published. Your 
use, then, of the conversation, whatever it was, was unauthorized. 
But we ought not to be surprised at this. My friend then presented 
to Mr. Moore the improbability of my giving such a monosyllabic 



44 

" No ! !" as I am represented to have done, to the last question. To 
this Mr Moore replied, — and I take the exact words from the lips of 
my companion, — that " he had not been particular in noting it, [my 
answer,] that he had recorded in as few words as possihle, the sub- 
stance of the conversation, and that Mr. Mann might have replied 
to the last question in a manner different from that imputed to him, 
and that his negative answer might not have been a simple No ! and 
might have been attended with some qualifying, explanatory remarks.'''' 
Such, then, is the statement made by Mr. Moore, even after the Re- 
corder had committed itself by publishing your sermon, and after you 
had committed your friends as well as yourself, by your pamphlet. 

This statement led me to look again at the report of the conver- 
sation, and I then noticed, for the first time, a curious fact on the 
face of it. Mr. Moore's questions to me are put in quotation marks, 
but my putative answers to him are not. Was there any sinister de- 
sign here ? The whole statement with its context, implies, as 
strongly as any thing can imply, that my loords were given. If it 
were any object here to discuss shades of falsity, this point would 
be worth inquiring into. 

The above, surely, are very substantial abatements from the story 
as you have told it. Granting that a conversation on this subject 
ever took place between Mr. Moore and myself, they prove that I 
might not have answered the last question as you have stated, and 
also that I might have accompanied my answer with "some quali- 
fying and explanatory remarks." 

Now it is exceedingly unpleasant to come into direct collision, on 
a plain matter of fact, with any gentleman. When one witness on 
the stand has sworn positively to any event, a succeeding witness is 
always embarrassed in testifying to the exact contrary, though the 
belief of the latter may be as positive as that of the former. Such 
irreconcileable contradictions always lead to an inquiry into motives ; 
into the course of conduct which one party has pursued towards the 
other ; and, in the last resort, it opens the question of general char- 
acter. Now I have as little desire as fear to necessitate such ques- 
tions between Mr. Moore and myself; and as it so happens that I 
can vindicate myself, without expressly contradicting him, I now 
forbear to call his statement and his conduct towards me in question. 
Contenting myself, then, with saying that, after all the effort and the 
tasking of our memories, that my friend and myself can make, 
neither he nor I can remember any such conversation as is said to 



45 

have takon place, I find sufiicient ground for self-justification in 
the admissions now made by Mr. Moore. He acknowledges that he 
may not have I'eponed my language ; he acknowledges that my al- 
leged answer may have been attended with " some qualifying and 
explanatory remarks." Suppose me then to have said that, accord- 
ing to my understanding of the law, the doctrine of future rewards 
and punishments could not be taught in our public schools, other- 
wise than as it is taught by the Bible ;— that is, that it could not be 
taught by introducing the Westminster Catechism, or any similar 
work ; or that it could not be taught in express contravention and 
denial of the belief of the Universalists, so far as future punishments 
are concerned. Now I affirm that this is as far as I ever went in 
any conversation with any man. I never said aught more than this 
to Mr. Moore. What, then, is my offence ? Personally, I believe 
jn a future state of rewards and punishments, just as firmly as I be- 
lieve the sun will rise and set tomorrow. I believe that the Bible 
teaches this doctrine. But this is my private belief. A portion of 
the Universalists and Unitarians believe otherwise. The law forbids 
each sect to make use of the schools as a means to propagate its 
own peculiar belief, or to put down that of a rival sect. What, then, 
did I say .'' At most, — merely that my sense of justice towards a 
minority would withhold me from teaching, in our Common Schools, 
what I myself believe to be true. You think such a course to be er- 
roneous. You object again and again, that doctrines are excluded 
" which nine-tenths of professed Christians, of all names, believe.'^ 
pp. 11, 47. You say, "a fundamental truth, received by all Chris- 
tian sects save one," is stricken out. p. 48. You condemn my al- 
leged interpretation of the " principles of piety," as excluding "all 
that treats of human depravity, — salvation by the blood of Jesus 
Christ, the atonement, &c." Of course, you are in favor of introdu- 
cing " total depravity" with its associate doctrines, into the Common 
Schools. You either think it lawful to do this, or you think it un- 
lawful. If you think it unlawful, then you condemn me for not join- 
ing you in violating the law. If you think it lawful, then I advise 
you to take the opinion of any respectable lawyer in the Common- 
wealth ; or to raise the question and have it decided by the Courts. 
Jn the city of Boston, where you are, there are several societies of 
Universalists. Why denounce me for differing from you in opinion 
about their rights .? Why not make a case, and carry the question 
before the competent tribunals } If you prove to be right, I will 



46 

hold my peace. If I am right, then all your denunciations of the 
Board, and of me, made without any attempt to have the question 
judicially settled, are false and wicked. 

But why has a Universalist always been allowed to hold a seat as 
a member of the Board of Education.? If that denomination have 
no rights because they constitute but one-tenth " of professed Chris- 
tians," as you intimate, then have they a representative on the Board 
to be insulted, as well as disfranchised ? Besides, Mr. Smith, every 
tyro in ecclesiastical history knows that every persecutinn, frf>m the 
time of Constantine to St. Bartholomew's and the fires of Smithfield, 
originated, proceeded, and was justified on the ground that a few dis- 
senters, or a 7ninorily, had no rights. Doubtless you suggest this 
course, ni)t because you are ignorant of its natural tendency, but be- 
cause you know it. 

I have a remark or two to make on the part Mr. Moore is said to 
have taken in this matter. I rejoice to hear that he not only admits 
the alleged conversation to have been private, but also that " he had 
no idea that Mr. Smith would make such use of it as he has made ; — 
he did not expect it would be published." I rejoice in this acknowl- 
edgement, because the lowest notions of honor and veracity would 
have required Mr. Moore, in such case, to give me the benefit of his 
present concessions. It seems to me it would not have shown a sense 
of honor squeamishly delicate, nor a conscience suflfering under any 
morbid activity, if Mr. Moore, when he found that you had abused 
his confidence, by publishing his story, and when, also, he saw and 
acknowledged thai he had not given me the benefit of the conces- 
sions to which I was entitled, — if lie had done me the justice to say 
so publicly. Dr. Humphrey did so. Your conduct would then have 
stood before the public in a truer liglit, and mine in a less false one. 

As you and Mr. Moore are prone to stigmatize as "Deists," those 
persons who diflbr from you, on certain theo'ogical points, I rejoice 
that he has given us his notions of what Deism is. After staling an 
alleged construction of the law, which would debar an appeal to a 
future state of rewards and punishments, he says, this would exclude 
from public schools "all but Deism" ; — that, under such a construc- 
tion, not " any thing belter [than Deism] could be taught." We 
have it, then, on the authority of an editor of the Boston Recorder, 
that though the Bible may be in all our schools ; though the prophe- 
cy of the coming of Christ, and the fulfilment of that prophecy be 
there ; though it be declared that life and immortality were brought 



47 

to light by the gospel ; that God was in Christ reconciling the world 
to himself; that it is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, 
that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, &c. &c. ; yet, 
unless the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments be 
taught, expressly, and separately from Bible reading, " ail but De- 
ism" is excluded from the schools. The distinctive feature of Chris- 
tianity then, is not a Revelation, nor the advent of the Messiah, nor 
the Atonement, nor the miracles and death and resurrection of 
Christ, nor all these together ; but it is the doctrine of a future state 
of rewards and punishments ; and whoever believes all the former, 
without the latter, Mr. Moore calls a " Deist." 

But notwithstanding all I have said on this point, Mr. Smith. I have 
one thing to add, in which your character is deeply at stake. Your 
original charge was, that the Board of Education had allowed me, 
*' under the sanction of its authority, to disseminate through the land 
crude and destructive principles," &cc. 1 have examined your proofs 
of this charge ; and, without making any abatement from them, 
what are they ? — one private conversation with Mr. Woodbridge, 
and one private conversation with Mr. Moore ! You have offered 
nothing else which bears the semblance of proof. A private con- 
versation with two individuals, in the course of ten years, is what 
you offer as proof of your charge that I have had the sanction of the 
Board of Education, in disseminating crude and destructive princi- 
ples THROUGH THE LAND ! One could hardly have supposed before- 
hand, that his indignation against falsehood could be even momenta- 
rily lost, by the ridiculousness of the proofs ofl'ered by its inventor, 
to sustain it. Besides, you once said, p. 26, "with your private 
views, I have nothing to do." What were these but private } 

As for your criticisms upon, (or sneers at }) the phrase " the nat- 
ural conscience," (p. 46,) which phrase you have copied from the 
Journal, 1 suppose every fair-minded man would understand by it, 
precisely what Bishop Butler understood by it, in his celebrated ser- 
mons upon Human Nature ; and precisely what St. Paul meant by 
it, Rom. ii. 15; "their conscience also bearing witness," — "their 
thoughts accusing or else excusing." 

So, too, respecting your censure, (p. 45,) of the position that ev- 
ery child has tlie '■'■ capacity f^r all that is good and noble.''' Must 
not every child have such a " capacity,^' as preliminary to his becom- 
ing a good man, a Christian.? His cupacily may be filled, or em- 
ployed, or roused, either by the grace of God, acting directly upon 



48 

his heart, or acting through the instrumentality of human means. 
But how can any one of the human family, any more than any one 
of the louer orders of animals, be the recipient of trutli, either di- 
vine or human, if lie has not the capacihj to receive it ? This is the 
true and obvious meaning of the passage you condemn. 

Another suggestion of yours is so gross that I could not have be- 
lieved that any man, having the slightest regard for his character, 
could make it, before I saw it in your " Reply," and subsequently in 
the Boston Recorder. It is, that a town's or a district's share of the 
income of the school fund, may depend upon the character of the re- 
ligious instruction given in its schools. No such condition is, or 
ever has been, known to the law ; and further, neither the Board 
nor myself has, or ever has had, the remotest connection with the 
apportionment of that income. What bearing such a statement or 
suggestion as this, coming from a clergyman, and a self-styled relig- 
ious paper, and having no possible object but to mislead, may have 
upon the question of the existence of a " natural conscience," Heave 
for your respective readers to determine, 

I have now considered all the leading proofs contained in your 
" Reply." Paley sajrs, " I have seldom known any one who de- 
serted truth in trifles, that could be trusted in matters of importance." 
The converse of this must be universally true ; and so I may consider 
all your more trivial and subordinate assertions to be also refuted. 

But you array authority against me. You cite two distinguished 
public personages, — the present Governor of the Commonwealth, 
and a Senator in the Congress of the United States, — to put me 
down. I acknowledge, if they can be fairly shown to be opposed 
to me, I have no alternative but to surrender. With the former 
gentleman, I have long enjoyed the honor of an acquaintance. 
He was a member of the Board of Education at its establishment. 
Could so humble an individual as myself bestow a compliment 
upon him, I would task my faculties to eulogize him, in selectest 
terms of power and brilliancy. This I could do, not only most 
sincerely, but most consistently. But how could you do this, Mr. 
Smith } Did you not know that the name of Governor Briggs 
appears as a sanctioner, approver, commender of those very works, 
in the School Library, which, as you aver, " inculcate the most 
deadly heresy, — even universal salvation.'" Yes, Mr. Smitli, there 
stands the name of Governor Briggs, as endorser and circulator of 
what you represent as damnable works ! 



49 

But you say, Governor Briggs " stands rebuked by his Secretary." 
Surely, never had unworthy citizen so gracious a governor as I. 
One week after your " Reply" was published, (and doubtless after 
you or some of your friends had sent him a copy of it, — though this 
is only my conjecture,) the Governor, in his annual message to the 
Senate and House of Representatives, in General Court assembled, 
addressed to them, to the State, and to you too, the following words, 
in relation to me : " Justice to a faithful public officer leads me to 
say, that the indefatigable and accomplished Secretary of the Board 
of Education has performed services in the cause of Common 
Schools, which will earn for him the lasting gratitude of the genera- 
tion to which he belongs." May I be pardoned, under the peculiar 
circumstances, for repeating these words to you ? I cannot say that 
they are deserved ; but only that I will try to deserve them. Even 
now, it makes me blush to quote so high an encomium from so high 
an authority ; and if, when we both read it, for the first time, it made 
you feel as black as it did me red, I would commend your case to 
the Humane Society. 

Although you cited the Governor against me, and sought artfully 
to pique him against me, by saying he " stood rebuked by his 
Secretary," yet perhaps you will say it is " in bad taste" for me 
to cite the same authority, at a later date, to extinguish you ; but 
my defence is, that there are occasions, and this seems to be one of 
them, when it is lawful to indulge the sight of a Haman swinging 
on his own gallows. 

You cite iVIr. Webster, also, against me. Is it possible that you 
can be so ignorant, or expect your readers to be so ignorant, as not to 
know the infinite distance between our school system and the system 
of Mr. Girard, against which Mr. Webster was contending ? After 
referring to Mr. Webster's argument, you ask, with an air of triumph, 
" Is he unacquainted with the Constitution?" 1 can only say in 
reply, that the Supreme Court of the United States overruled his 
argument, by their decision. Are they unacquainted with the 
Constitution ? 

Among his other vast and splendid attainments, Mr. Webster 
doubtless possesses much theological lore, but his knowledge of the 
laws and action of the human mind is ampler still. As you refer 
me to a passage in one of. his public speeches, allow me to recipro- 
cate the favor by referring you to a passage in another, of a later 
7 



50 



date, which will I think bring your conduct, and yourself, very 
vividly to the minds of your readers. 

In his celebrated speech on the Northeastern boundary, delivered 
in the Senate of the United States, last April, there is the following 
description, which to the readers of your pamphlet, needs no appli- 
cation of mine : " Sir, this person's mind is so grotesque, so 
bizarre, it is rather the caricature of a mind than a mind. When we 
see a man of some knowledge and some talents, who is yet incapable 
of producing anything true, or useful, we sometimes apply to him 
a phrase borrowed from the mechanics ; we say, ' there is a screw 
loose somewhere !' In this case, the screws are loose all over. 
The whole machine is out of order, disjointed, rickety, crazy, 
creaking, as often upside down as upside up ; as often hurting as 
helping those who use it, and generally incapable of anything but 
bungling and mischief." 

THE COMMON SCHOOL LIBRARY. 

On this topic but little needs to be said. You declared, in your 
sermon, that the Board had accepted books for their Library, 
" that inculcate the most deadly heresy, — even universal salvation." 
In my first note to you I said, " May I ask you to tell me what those 
books are r" In your answer, you neither quoted nor cited any 
passage or page. Your only evidence was this ; " My attention was 
first called to it by a preacher of Universalism," — being willing in 
this case, to shield yourself under the authority of an anonymous 
Universalist. In my reply, I pressed the matter more closely home ; 
I called upon you to come out from under your shelter of a vague 
accusation, and give " books" and " passages." I offered you my 
copy of the Library, that you might prosecute your investigations 
leisurely and thoroughly. I closed with admonishing you to "prove 
your charge or withdraw it, or ask no man hereafter to believe 
you." In your long " Reply," you still abstain from quoting a 
single passage in proof of your assertion. And you cannot do it, 
Mr. Smith. You dare not do it. You have referred to some papers 
in three volumes of the Sacred Philosophy of the Seasons ; but there 
is not a single paper, page or passage, refen-ed to, but would, if 
spread out upon your pages, be your own condemnation. I challenge 
you to spread before the public, the pages you have referred to. 

Remember, Mr. Smith, the burden of proof is on you. You made 
the accusation. You charged honorable and religious men with 



51 

dishonorable and irreligious conduct. Your character for truth Is 
now subjected to the single alternative of proving the charge or 
withdrawing it. Failure to do one or the other of these, brands you 
forever as a premeditated and persevering libeller. You have 
failed to do either ; and though it is not incumbent on me to vindicate 
the Library from your unproved and unprovable charge, yet a few 
words, exposing the manner in which you have attempted to mislead 
your readers, seem to be demanded. 

On page 57, though you dare to quote no passage, you have six 
references. As a specimen of your perversions, take your reference 
to vol. ii, page 104. You object that it contains an " offer of the 
world to come, in which ' no death or sin is,' without that limit which 
the Bible makes." On referring to the passage, I find the offer is 
expressly, and in words, limited to " the redeemed." 

You refer to vol. ii, page 278, as teaching " a resurrection to 
immortal glory of the dead, without distinction of character." 
On referring to this passage, I find it is expressly limited to the 
" bodies of the just." But what can be said to you ; of what use to 
bray you in a mortar, — preacher, clergyman, theologian, self- 
appointed censor of the Board of Education. When you animad- 
verted upon this passage, how could you be so stupid as not to 
remember that St. Paul, in 1 Cor. xv. where lie describes the 
resurrection, does it " without distinction of character V You 
adopt a principle of exegesis which makes the Apostle Paul 
a heretic. Do you say there is something in St. Paul's context } 
I reply, there is not only something in the context of the passage 
referred to, but something, also, in the body of the passage itself. 
You make even an antagonist ashamed of your blindness and folly. 

You refer to vol, iii, page 2-4, as containing an editorial note, 
"mellowing the author's remarks on Christ." There is no editorial 
note at that place. With your reference " 2-4" in my mind, I 
looked the volume carefully through as far as page 224, (instead of 
" 2-4,") where I find the following editorial note : " It is held by 
some persons that this ' prince' is a personification of the principle 
and power of that moral evil, which unquestionably exists to so great 
an extent and virulent degree among men." It is true, this note re- 
fers, not to Christ, as you say, but to the devil ; but I see no rea- 
son, on that account, to doubt it to be the note you mean ; — this being 
as near the truth as you generally come. 

But I cannot dwell on your heart-sickening corruption. The work 



52 

you refer to is that of the Rev. Dr. Duncan, of Scotland, one of the 
most earnest of its evangelical divines. The School Library edition 
was edited by the late Rev. Dr. Greenwood, who, in his introduc- 
tion, declares himself to be " certain, that he has carefully and con- 
scientiously abstained from introducing any of the peculiar opinions 
of the denomination to which he himself belongs." It was approved 
as a suitable volume for the School Library, after being attentively 
read, by Governor Briggs, and by the Rev. Dr. Thomas Robbins, and 
the Rev. Emerson Davis of Westfield, — two Orthodox divines. But 
on this you say, " Nor can I conceive how the fact that Gov. Briggs 
is sound in the faith, alters the character of certain books in the li- 
brary," &c. But where were your senses, Mr. Smith ? Were they, 
like your conscience, non-existent ? On the back of the title-page 
of each of the volumes you refer to, stands the name of Gov. Briggs 
himself, as a sanctioner of the work ! This beggars description. 

But once more. The above work was carried through the press 
and all its proofs carefully read and revised by an orthodox Episco- 
palian, Joseph W. Ingraham, Esq. I close my evidence, on this 
point, by introducing a letter from Mr. Ingraham, who, from his con- 
nection with the press while the work was passing through it, must 
be acquainted with every part of it : — 

Boston, Jan. 30, 1847. 

Hon. Horace Mann; — My Dear Sir; — I hardly know how to spare 
time to comply with your request, and yet I cannot refuse to do so. When 
charges are made against the School Library, from any responsible source, 
I shall be again, as heretofore, ready to meet tliem ; but random charges, 
like those to which you have called my attention, need no reply. Their 
author had either examined the volumes of the School Library, or he had 
not. If he had examined them, he knew that his charges were untrue. If 
he had not examined them, he is guilty of making false charges, without 
knowing whether he had grounds for so doing or not* 

The charges now brought against the Library, are not a little singular. 
It is said that the Library accepts books "that inculcate the most deadly 
heresy, — even universal salvation." " All that savors of evangelical truth 
is carefully removed, — sentiments abound which no evangelical Christian 
can sanction." As a disbeliever in the doctrine of Universal Salvation, as 
a lover "of evangelical truth," and as claiming to be an "evangelical 
Christian," I pronounce these charges absolutely and unqualifiedly /a/se. 

It is curious, that the only work instanced as liable to the charge of in- 
culcating the doctrine of universal salvation, is the one against wliich the 
Universalists have most loudly complained, as teaching directly the oppo- 

*Two paragraphs otMr. Iiigraham's letter are here omitted, as not bearing direct- 
ly upon the quesiioii at issue. Mr. Ingraham had the editorial supervision of the 
whole Library, as far as it was printed two years ago, and he perlormed the service 
in a most able and satisfactory manner. — H. M. 



site of their belief. Soon after the publication of " The Sacred Philosophy 
of the Seasons," the Trumpet, the leading Universalist paper, attacked it, 
as inculcating doctrines wliicii they did not believe; and one of the pub- 
lishers of the Library, (who was a member of that denomination,) com- 
plained, tlmt I had allowed the pledge of the Board to be violated in " innu- 
merable instances" in this work. To this charge, I could not ple;id guilty ; 
but at one time it was a serious question, whether the work should not be 
excluded from the Library, on tins account. No one ever dreamed, that 
the work would afterwards be attacked on the ground of its inculcating the 
very doctrines that it was tlien supposed it so strongly opposed. 

" Optics sharp it needs, I ween, 
To see what is not to be seen." 

The attack, to which you have now called my attention, speaks of the 
alterations made in the "Seasons," by Dr. Greenwood, and says "those 
alterations make all the difference in the world. Much that goes out into 
the world under your auspices, as Sabbath reading, is as well entitled to 
that distinction, as the Farmers' Almanac, and no more so. Read the 
Titles," After giving the Titles of several of the "Sunday Papers," he 
adds, "Such subjects, divested of the religious character given tlu-m by 
their author, altered to suit the irreligious, indicate the character of the 
Sabbath reading officially recommended." The Titles here given aie those 
of Dr. Duncan himself; and the Papers are just as they stood in the origi- 
nal, ivilhout alteration, except in a few trifling instances, to correct errois, 
or objectionable expressions, and omissions of some sentences for the sake 
of shortening the Papers. I believe there was but one omission, in </tese 
papers, on account of its doctrinal tendency ; and no alteration to make the 
author speak a language which he did not intend. 

Six passages are commended to your attention, as " proof, in part, of 
what" the writer " affirms of the Library." Five of these six passages 
stand in the Library just as Dr Duncan wrote them ; with the exception, 
as before, of a few trifling corrections, and tiie omission of a few sentences. 
Dr. Duncan's doctrine is not altered, or any part of it omitted, I believe, in 
a single instance. No one will, certainly, accuse hirn of inculcating Uni- 
versalism. To the sixth passage referred to, — Dr. Greenwood's note, — if 
any one can object, let him do so. I do not. 

Objection is made to Mr. Peabody's "Life of Brainerd," as if it were an 
abridgment of Edwards's. This was never pretended. It was thouofht that 
a good selection could be made from Sparks's "Library of American Biog- 
raphy," and an arrani,^eLneril for that purpose v/as made with the proprietors 
of the copyright of that work. Lives enough to form three volumes ol our 
Library, were selected ; and Peabody's "Lite of Brainerd" liappened to be 
one of them. This was not an abridgment of Edwards, but was written 
by Mr. P., and in his Preface he gives the sources whence he derived his 
materials. Edwards's "Life" is the second named, of three works used in 
preparing it. And yet this pamphlet writer has the hardihood to assert, 
that " it goes down to posterity, as the veritable work of Edwards, endorsed 
by the Massachusetts Board of Education" ! ! I 

I have thus, my dear sir, given a very hasty reply to your request, and 
have not time to add more, than that 
I am, very truly, yours, 

JOSEPH W. INGRAHAM. 

Here, then, Mr. Smith, you have the broad declaration of an or- 
thodox, evangelical Christian, intimately acquainted with the whole 



54 

merits of the subject. He pronounces your charges "absolutely 
and unqualified ly/aZse." Here is the reason why you did not dare 
to quote a solitary passage, in your " Reply," but made a show of 
referring to the volumes. But those volumes have been read by 
others, who will all convict and condenui you, as Mr. Ingraham has 
done. The library is scattered over the State, in a thousand school 
districts. You can go but a short distance, in any direction, without 
passing it. Wherever you go, the words in which Mr. Ingraham de- 
scribes your charges, will forever hiss in your ears — " They are 
false, ''^ " They are false." 

Having considered your proofs, I come to your rhetorical perora- 
tion. Your untrue allegations I have refuted by facts, but your 
rhetoric may be answered by rhetoric. In your close, you compare 
our Schools to the " steamer Great Britain," wrecked in Dundrum 
Bay, on the Irish coast ; and, according to you, the Board of Edu- 
cation and myself, by our fatal navigation, are running the Common 
Schools of Massachusetts on the Dundrum Bay of infidelity. I take 
no exception to your simile, because it fails in the very point where 
resemblance was most needed ; for, while the " Great Britain" is 
known to be a wreck, we have the testimony of three hundred boards 
of school committee men, that our Schools were never before known 
to be in so prosperous and safe a condition as at the present, — each 
one of them, so far as I know, having the sheet, and bower anchor of 
the Bible on board. But let this pass, as one of your poetic licenses. 
I would that you had taken no other. When I first read this nauti- 
cal similitude of yours, I thought I would match it by anolher, — also 
nautical. But mine should be American, while yours was appropri- 
ately Irish. It v/as this: In 1841, ascending the river Ohio, at a 
time when competition between the boats was very keen, and the 
most knavish tricks were sometimes played, to decoy passengers 
from one boat to another, — just as we were about to leave one of the 
" landings," a suspicious, malign looking person, was seen to step 
from another boat into ours, and after walking two or three times 
round the deck, with an air of vast importance, and a look designed 
to indicate intuitive knowledge, he elbowed himself into the middle 
of a group of passengers, and exclaimed, "Powder!" " I smell 
powder!" " There is powder in this boat." "'Tis hid down by 
the engines.'''' '' We shall all be blown up !" "You liiid belter fol- 
low me into the next boat, which is to start soon !" After the sus- 
pense of a moment's amazement, a staid bystander, in a quaker garb, 



55 

replied, " Thee sayest the powder is hid by the engines. The boai 
has been a good boat thus far. We will go and see whether thy 
powder is there." The varlet instantly disappeared ! 

Now, Mr. Smith, there is powder, and too much of it in the world ; 
but the mistake, both of yourself, and the rogue whom I have de- 
scribed, was, that you assigned so definite a place for your powder, 
that every body could look for himself, and affirm it was not there. 
It was as though you should tell a man, in plain citizens' apparel, 
that he had on a State-prison garb. Its only effect would be, — to 
make him look at yours. 

I say, that when I concluded the first hasty reading of your "Re- 
ply," I thought I Avould give the above illustration, as an offset to 
yours ; but the emotions which a more careful investigation of your 
conduct has excited in my mind, are too melancholy to allow me to 
part with you in this mood. You are a professed minister of the 
Gospel. You assume to be a disciple of Him who went about doing 
good. You are bound by the most solemn obligations, to let your 
light so shine before men, that they seeing your good works, may 
be led to glorify our Father in heaven. But what have yon done ! 
In a place and in a manner, — such as not the most aged and vene- 
rable clergyman in the Commonwealth ; such as not the most distin- 
guished layman ; such as not the most flagitious politician, goaded 
on by fiery partisan zeal, has ever ventured upon, — you have ar- 
raigned and denounced a body of men, as pure and as high as were 
ever associated together in the State of Massachusetts. The most 
heinous offences, which, ss members of a Christian Commonwealth, 
or as subjects of the government of God, they could commit, you 
laid to their charge. Owing to my relation to that body of men, and 
to my being implicated in one part of your accusation, I addressed 
you a private note, — a note dictated by kindness, and not by anger, 
and not containing a word of recrimination. Knowing that the 
statements attributed to you were diametrically opposite to the truth, 
I gave you a detail of some facts, and forwarded to you some official 
documents, demonstrative of your error. The facts and the documen- 
tary proof, you disdained to accredit ; and with foul and insulting 
innuendo, you persisted in the wrong you had begun. To this, in 
another private note, I expostulated further ; and, at its close, I be- 
sought you to reconsider. the course you had taken. " If," said I, in 
closing it, " from inadvertence, from want of information, or from 
any other cause, you have been led to do injustice to the Board of 



56 

Educatioh and to myself, and to wrong a great and a sacred cause, 
have the religion, have the Christianity, at least, have the worldly 
magnanimity and honor, to make redress." You had smitten me on 
one cheek; and I here turned to you the other. But you were not 
satisfied with smiting me a second time, in private. You dragged 
me before the public to insult and malign me, in the face of the 
world. I have met your charges. Your falsification in regard to 
the " sectarian character" of the Common School Journal, and my 
views and desires as to the introduction of the Bible into school, I 
have met, by the testimony of Dr. Humphrey. Your falsification in 
regard to my opinions about the use of the rod in school, I have 
proved by Mr. Page, — selected from among a thousand witnesses. 
Your falsification in regard to the Common School Library, is con- 
clusively shown by the testimony of Mr. Ingraham, as well as by 
your own fear to spread a single passage of the books you referred 
to, upon your pages. In each other particular, I think you have 
been refuted, wherever you had gone round the thirty-two points of 
the compass, affirming south to be north, and cast to be west. 

In vindication of my conduct to my friends, I desire to say that, 
had I known as much respecting your character and standing, when 
I addressed you my first note, as I now do, I should not have trou- 
bled you. But I wrote that note from the purest motives, and with- 
out the slightest apprehension that it would draw after it such conse- 
quences as your subsequent conduct has made necessary. 

In writing the foregoing answer, and dwelling, as I necessarily 
have done, upon the wrongs you have committed against a noble 
cause, and against excellent men ; — and, from my intimate know- 
ledge of what has been done, seeing this wrong as no other per- 
son could do, — I have been moved to righteous indignation ; but 
at the close of this letter, while bringing yourself more distinctly and 
exclusively before my mind, my sorrow and pity predominate, and I 
leave you with the sincere hope and prayer that you may repent and 
find forgiveness, and " go and sin no more." 
Very truly, yours, &c., 

HORACE MANN. 

West Newton, Jan. 30, 1847. 



Ov)«rw.- ^Ott-WvvJi/w 'JuAaXjwa^xA • 





SEQUEL 



SO CALLED CORRESPONDENCE 




BETWEEN THE 



Rev. M. H. SMITH and HORACE MANN, 

S U Tx R E PT I T I r S L Y V V B L I S H K 1) 

uv 

Mr. SMITH; 

CONTAIMNG A 

LETTER FROM MR. MANN, 

SUPPRESSED BY MR. S:\TITH, 

WITH THE 

REPLY THEREIN PROMISED. 



A-M BOSTON: 

WILLIAM B . F VV L E , 1 38 ^ W A S H I N G T O N S T R E E T , 

TUTTLE AND DENNETT, PRINTERS. 

1847. 










HMBt! 



c 


c. 


a 


c 


c 


C 


<L 


<c 


C 


<: 


Cv 


C 


C 


c 






'C 


<L 


<c: 


<L 


fd 


<S 


tC:> 


«3 


«x:v 


. C 


cc:^ 


<« 


«ai 


c 


<?G 




<*' 





<L( 


CC 


<L< 


f c 


«^ 




<: 


f^ c * 


■C' 


' c < 


C^ 


< c 


O' 


c 


O' 


c 


CX' 


o 


CO 


c 


cc 


<r^ 


C<^' 


tc 



^ <^ s 

Cad d 



CC o 

c c_ c<: 

CC cC 

dC CC 

CO C< 



^: < c cs 

■*r_ < c dc 

- tc OC 

c: c;c <:< 

d ex C5^ 

c:c.c d- 

d.<.c <r< 

C CC <JC 

c:cc dc^ 

c CC <r^ 

CCC «c: 

c CC c: 

cciT d: ■• 

dccd 

■ crccc:./^ 
CCCl: c 
C C ' 



C <I^ CC 

< <Z^ CC 



dC ^ 
CC <^ 

cd cid: 
c c <S-" 

CC '^l'^ 

CC «: 

CC f<CLC 

CC c: 



"^ CC ..^: <• 

1 CC '<& c ^ 

.■ -d"^- CC ^J ■' 

c en CC <r; CC 

' (C «. ■J^ 

=°'cc «:: ^- c 

S: <C <£!; ^' 

_ _i cc-«;^ '^c 

*- d CC d: ,c c 

< dec d s^ 

<•* d CC <:; <;> 

«: d^r cr c ^. 



c <::/<: <t 

d_cc C 
• d« c 



C:tc<rc" -<is-C 



dfi CC , <^.^ 



_cC d 
^JLcc <: 
«:rcc c: 
<z:cc d 

dice d 

d:<c d: 

^/c d. 
dZ'C dc 
dL'C c:t, 
dZ<-d 



^^ d 




<^cc ^. 




^cC ^ 




d^c-c ^ 




C^ CC ^ 


- , 


fe^ 1 


S"- • 


d" cc 5 


;^" 


g= CC < 


P 


d «^*^ 4 


r — ^, 


Pr CC " * 


k^ -- 


d <^*^ 


f<' 


r" <^^ 


^ - 


^ CC 
- dC 


^ 


-II 


d:. 
d 

d: 

d; 


<: d 


-<< 


' ^c 


d 

c« 


U 


d 
c 
c 



t— ■ 


c 


-''C 


f 




C 


c 


c 


[~~ .■ 


d 


d 


t 


^ 1 


c< 


c 


C 


d 


■ c 


c 


. c 


d_ 


■: c 


c 


<r 


tcr_'. 




r' t 


<r 


d 


■ c 


c 


. C 
d. 


' Cf 


c 


<d 


<_ 


' c 


<t_ 


d 


'• c 


c 


. dJ 


. d 


r 


'CC 


d 


^ 


1 < 


C: . C 

:l:c. 


d 


^ 


• ( 


c 


d 






<d^ < 


C «l— 


_^ 


<S1 


c -sid. 


<. 


<3C 


< c ■'d 




<3C 


c «d: 


~ V 


<d 


c 'd 


"c 


<d ' 


.c -aC^ 


•c 


«: 


'.c <d: 


' 


<3L 


f <d^ 


< 


<:«; 


^ '*Z 


' * 


ex: 


<.--.d 


^ * 


C< 


c «dl. 


c 


<<c 




„< 


ct 


<^d 


_< 



c 


c 


c 


d 


c 


< 


cr 


c 


c 


c 




c 



cc -^ 



If «c 




<- 


3;c: 


<c« 


c 




c;." 




rcc 


<: 


c 




C:> 


c 

d 


rcc 
cccr 


C- 


d_ 

d 

d 


r,i< 


d 


d 


C'C" 


d 


<! 
^ 


ilC_ 


d 


d 


c^C 


, d 


< 


tc 


C. 




rr 


d 


c 




c 


d 

d 

< 


: :c 


<L 


c 


<^ 


< 


c 


c: 


<c 


< c. 


CJ 




<: c 


<r 




f c 


d-^ 




' c 
< < 


en 





r_<3.f 


<: 


cd" 


<c 


<dt< 


<; 


'-d'-^ 


-<i 


.<Ci< 


^:- 


,<<ic 


<c: 


■ d 


< «: 


*i: 


:v«: 


<L 


"^c; 


<!■ ' 


<■ 


i<^ 


c 


f-d. 


<: 


'd 


c 


^& 


Cj 


'd 


c 


<t" 


c^ 


CL, 


c 


<r 


c 


<r". 


c 


c 


<-• 


..'<; 


C' 


<r 


c 


jt 


CiC" 



u.' <Z^ <S.d__ 





'/ ec ■ 


r*- ■ 


<exj 


h^ 


y<ic< 


^ 




^ 


, <:'d 


<:: 


c< 


<i 


cC 


^ 


' - cc 


rf^ 


cd 


^fc — 


- , tC 



0^^. «C < 


CI^ <L^ 


<:;; <■ - 


KITS tsr^ ■ 


< <c < 


d. «_ 1- 


<i < -^T 






<5:<: V 




d^d^c 


<i^'~- ^z , 


^ ' <" r (a t< ^. — 


d<, <; ^ ,g^^ ,_ ^g;_ 


« . < < 


'd.tc «^l 


<<-'.<C «, 


cd<c •^d^ 


<?<.d c 


'dTc'c ^CL 


-r'fr< c^ 


«d t c ^g^ 


f^^: c c 


odt' < ^^^ 


« c < 


«d<^t <d\ 


*^ C c . 


cdidc ■ -CC^ 


<r _ < <_ 


ddc OC 


^ c. . 


<: <^<l "<s: 


< . <; , 


d d«: -^ 


<-_ < < 


d: dd «C 


C ^ V ' 


■<:_<j-2d_ •^i 


■*~ '^ ' 


f<c d_d ^B 


*^- ^ .. 


'd <tr -c ^ 


^ ^. ' 


•c c <: ^ 


< C 


'■c. -cr <c 


'■ ^ 


>d <rd: « 


^ '' 


"d d d: 


<- ' 


■d d di 


- , <■ . . 


<: "C <cr 




'«t:; ■ <- <-' . 4 



